PingRelay MCP Server

monitor_metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one non-deleted monitor's metrics over a rolling UTC window ending now: check count, uptime percentage, response-time average/min/max/p95/p99 in milliseconds, incident count, and human-readable mean resolution time (N/A when unavailable). Use MonitorReport for organization-wide reporting.

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>",
      "duration": "<duration>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`duration`	Yes	Required rolling window: 6h, 24h, 7d, 30d, or 90d, measured backward from the current UTC time.
`monitorExternalId`	Yes	External monitor GUID returned as Id by MonitorList or MonitorListRecent; must belong to the authenticated organization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / duration / description

Added value: +"Required rolling window: 6h, 24h, 7d, 30d, or 90d, measured backward from the current UTC time."

addedInput schema / properties / monitorExternalId / description

Added value: +"External monitor GUID returned as Id by MonitorList or MonitorListRecent; must belong to the authenticated organization."

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add semantics on top, which it does: the window is rolling and measured backward from current UTC time, only non-deleted monitors qualify, and mean resolution time can come back as N/A. It does not discuss behavior for a missing or deleted monitor ID, which would complete the picture.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that puts the core purpose first and then the returned fields, with zero filler. The metric enumeration is dense but each item is information an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating every metric plus units and the N/A case. Combined with the fully documented two-parameter schema and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented with allowed duration values and the GUID's provenance. The description adds only modest meaning beyond that — reinforcing that the window is rolling and UTC-anchored — which is the expected baseline 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get one non-deleted monitor's metrics over a rolling UTC window ending now") and then enumerates exactly which metrics are returned. It distinguishes itself from MonitorReport by scoping to a single monitor versus organization-wide reporting, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

It gives a clear usage context (single monitor, rolling window ending now) and explicitly routes organization-wide needs to MonitorReport. It stops short of naming the other near-neighbors such as monitor_latest_checks, monitor_incidents, or monitor_get, so the agent gets one exclusion but must infer the rest.

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?