List the monitored assets (websites/domains) in YOUR Merlonix account. Returns each asset id, hostname, type, and monitoring status. Requires an API key (Authorization: Bearer mk_… from app.merlonix.com → Settings → API keys).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the API key required (Bearer mk_…), the exact return fields, and the account-scoped nature. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination, which are minor for a simple list endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action ('List the monitored assets'), then details the output fields, then the authentication prerequisite. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It defines the scope, the authentication requirement, and what the response will contain (asset id, hostname, type, monitoring status). Given the simplicity, there are no meaningful gaps that could cause an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly notes there are no parameters to configure, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. No additional parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists monitored assets (websites/domains) in the user's Merlonix account. It mentions the return fields (id, hostname, type, monitoring status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_asset, delete_asset, update_asset, and list_my_alerts. The verb 'List' and resource 'monitored assets' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about scope ('YOUR Merlonix account') and authentication requirements (API key), which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of a full 5. Still, the read-only intent is clear and aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The five check tools are differentiated by their target (agent readiness, broken links, domain health, email blacklist, MCP health), and asset/alert management tools have clear CRUD/lifecycle boundaries. No two tools appear to overlap.
All 16 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., check_domain_health, create_asset, list_my_alerts). The verbs are clear and consistently used, making the API predictable.
16 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring service that spans asset management, alert lifecycle, multiple diagnostic checks, vendor status, and plan listing. Every tool has a distinct role and earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers full asset CRUD (create, list, update, delete, get checks), alert lifecycle (list, acknowledge, resolve), and a broad set of standalone checks. Minor gaps like a direct 'get asset' endpoint or manual re-check are absent, but core workflows are fully supported.
