Monitor Hub

test_endpoint

Read-only

Runs an instant live HTTP/ping probe test against any website or API URL.

Measures exact response time (latency), HTTP status code, response headers, and response snippet without creating a monitor.

Use this tool to verify endpoint reachability, test latency, check SSL/TLS responses, or diagnose an ongoing outage.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Alternative alias for target.
`body`	No	Optional request body payload for POST/PUT/PATCH.
`method`	No	HTTP method (GET, POST, HEAD, PUT, OPTIONS).	GET
`target`	No	Target URL or IP address to test (e.g. https://api.example.com/health).
`headers`	No	Optional custom request headers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description discloses useful behavior beyond the annotations — it measures latency, status code, headers and a response snippet, and leaves no monitor behind. However it explicitly advertises probing 'any website or API URL', i.e. arbitrary external endpoints, while annotations declare openWorldHint=false (closed-world interaction). That is a direct contradiction about whether the tool reaches outside the server's domain.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: capability and measurement set first, then usage guidance. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return content (latency, status, headers, snippet) and states the non-persistent side effect. It is slightly thin on operational behavior an agent would want before firing a live probe — timeout limits, redirect handling, response-size caps, or auth requirements for custom headers.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no per-parameter meaning. It also does not resolve the internal inconsistency where body mentions POST/PUT/PATCH while the method parameter lists only GET, POST, HEAD, PUT, OPTIONS.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource — an instant live HTTP/ping probe against a URL — and immediately separates itself from persistent monitoring with 'without creating a monitor'. An agent can identify this as the one-shot reachability/latency test without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (verify reachability, test latency, check SSL/TLS, diagnose an outage) and implicitly positions itself against create_monitor via 'without creating a monitor'. It stops short of explicitly naming create_monitor as the alternative when persistent monitoring is wanted, so no true when-not guidance.

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?