Monitor Hub

update_monitor

Updates configuration for an existing monitor (name, target URL, interval, HTTP method, headers, expected status code).

Use this tool when a user wants to edit or reconfigure a monitor.

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": "update_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The unique ID of the monitor to update.
`url`	No	Alias for target.
`body`	No	Request payload body for POST/PUT checks.
`name`	No	New descriptive name for the monitor.
`method`	No	HTTP method (GET, POST, HEAD, PUT).
`target`	No	New target URL or IP address.
`headers`	No	Custom HTTP headers object.
`keyword`	No	Keyword string expected in response body.
`monitor_id`	No	Alternative alias for id.
`expected_status`	No	Expected HTTP status code range (e.g. "200-399").
`interval_seconds`	No	New checking interval in seconds (30, 60, 300, 600, 1800, 3600).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about the semantics that matter here: whether unspecified fields are left untouched (a partial patch), whether the change takes effect immediately or on the next check cycle, or what permissions are needed. Given the lower bar set by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and field scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence is close to redundant with the first but still carries the usage cue, so it mostly earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with zero required parameters, an agent needs to know that an identifier (id or monitor_id) must be supplied even though the schema marks nothing required, and whether omitted fields are preserved. Neither is stated, and there is no output schema to clarify the result, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 11 parameters are already documented, and the description only re-lists a subset of the fields. It does not resolve the real ambiguities: the id / monitor_id and target / url alias pairs, or which parameters are effectively mandatory to identify the monitor. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Updates configuration for an existing monitor" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the configurable fields, so an agent knows exactly what capability this exposes. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as pause_monitor or update_status_page, which would have warranted a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Use this tool when a user wants to edit or reconfigure a monitor" gives a when-to-use condition, but it largely restates the purpose rather than adding routing information. There is no exclusion (e.g., pause/resume for state changes, or which sibling to use when there is no monitor id yet), so the agent must infer boundaries.

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?