Enable a previously disabled monitor to resume its scheduled runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| backfill | No | Optional backfill behavior for resume. | |
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor ID to enable |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the primary action but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., monitor must be disabled), potential failures, or side effects. With no annotations, more context would help.
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?
One sentence, 10 words, no wasted language. Front-loads the action and target.
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?
Simple toggle tool with output schema present. Missing clarification on behavior if monitor already enabled (error vs no-op) but otherwise adequate.
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?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'previously disabled' which is implicit in monitor_id context.
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?
Clearly states the tool enables a disabled monitor to resume scheduled runs. Specific verb 'enable' with resource 'monitor'. Distinguishes from siblings like disable_monitor.
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?
Implies use on disabled monitors but does not explicitly state when to use or when not (e.g., avoid if already enabled). No alternatives mentioned.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some pairs like create_dataset vs create_dataset_from_csv or pull_results vs pull_job_csv could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify differences.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_dataset, list_datasets) with minor exceptions like append_csv_to_dataset and pull_job_csv. Overall predictable.
60 tools is high for an MCP server, but the domain (web research, job processing, multiple resource types) justifies the count. Still borders on excessive.
The server offers full CRUD for datasets, entities, monitors, projects, webhooks, plus job submission, status polling, result retrieval (JSON/CSV), webhook management, and health endpoints. No obvious gaps.