PingRelay MCP Server

monitor_incidents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get up to five non-deleted incidents for a non-deleted monitor in the authenticated organization, newest first. Includes active and resolved incidents. Use IncidentList for paginated searching or IncidentGet for one incident.

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": {
      "monitorExternalId": "<monitorExternalId>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_incidents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`monitorExternalId`	Yes	External monitor GUID returned as Id by MonitorList or MonitorListRecent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's added value is the operational detail: hard cap of five results, newest-first ordering, exclusion of deleted incidents and monitors, org scoping, and inclusion of both active and resolved states. It also implicitly signals there is no pagination. It stops short of describing the shape of an incident record, which is the remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and result count, followed by inclusion scope and then sibling routing. No redundant restatement of the name or title and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, ordering, result cap, and alternatives. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what fields a returned incident carries, leaving the agent to discover the response shape by calling it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema even explains where the UUID comes from (MonitorList/MonitorListRecent). The description reinforces the semantics by requiring that the monitor be non-deleted and within the authenticated organization, which adds a validity constraint the schema does not express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get incidents for a monitor) plus the exact scope: max five, non-deleted incidents, non-deleted monitor, authenticated organization, newest first, active and resolved included. That is far more precise than the bare name and lets an agent distinguish it from incident_list and incident_get without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: 'Use IncidentList for paginated searching or IncidentGet for one incident', which implicitly defines this tool's niche as a small newest-first snapshot. Minor friction: the alternatives are cited as IncidentList/IncidentGet while the actual siblings are incident_list/incident_get, so an agent may not map the names cleanly.

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

All PingRelay MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?