Monitor Hub

create_monitor

Creates a new monitor inside Monitor Hub.

Supports: • HTTP • HTTPS • API • Ping • TCP Port • Keyword Monitoring

Use this tool whenever a user wants to monitor a website, API, server, endpoint, IP address or service.

Returns the newly created monitor and its initial monitoring status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Alias for target.
`body`	No	Optional HTTP request body payload for POST/PUT checks.
`name`	Yes	Purpose: Descriptive name for the new monitor. Example values: Production Checkout API Frontend Website Validation rules: Must be a non-empty string.
`type`	No	Purpose: Monitoring type. Supported values: http https tcp port ping keyword	http
`method`	No	HTTP method (e.g. GET, POST, HEAD).	GET
`target`	No	Purpose: Target URL or hostname to monitor. Accepted values: URL or IP address. Example values: https://monitorhubs.com https://api.example.com/health
`headers`	No	Optional custom HTTP headers to include with checks.
`keyword`	No	Expected keyword string for keyword monitors.
`category`	No	Purpose: Category grouping. Supported values: uptime api	uptime
`interval_seconds`	No	Purpose: Monitoring interval in seconds (Free: 300s, Starter: 60s, Pro/Business: 30s). Supported values: 30 60 300 600 1800 3600

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by stating it returns the newly created monitor with its initial monitoring status, but leaves open whether the monitor begins active or paused, what happens on duplicate names, or any auth/plan prerequisites beyond the interval limits buried in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and result, then a scannable bullet list of supported types, then the return behavior. The type bullets partly duplicate the schema enum, which is the only wasted space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a ten-parameter creation tool with a nested headers object and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, supported types and the return shape. It omits post-creation state (active vs paused), duplicate-handling, and any prerequisites, which an agent would need before invoking confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the ten parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums for type and category and plan-based interval values. The description's type list (HTTP, HTTPS, API, Ping, TCP Port, Keyword) largely restates the schema enum and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new monitor inside Monitor Hub") and enumerates the monitor types it supports, so the agent knows exactly what will be produced. It stops short of differentiating itself from sibling write tools like update_monitor or test_endpoint, so it is clear but not disambiguating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this tool whenever a user wants to monitor a website, API, server, endpoint, IP address or service" gives concrete trigger scenarios. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., use update_monitor for an existing monitor, or test_endpoint to validate a target first), which is the only gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Monitor Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?