PingRelay MCP Server

monitor_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report non-deleted organization monitors over a rolling UTC window ending now; requires the reporting plan feature. Check counts, average response time (milliseconds), incident counts, and incident-based uptime percentage use that window. MTTR (milliseconds) uses incidents resolved during the window. LongestOutage (milliseconds) and TotalIncidents are all-time; ActiveIncidents is the current active/unresolved count. Monitor Status codes are 0 not set, 1 online, 2 down, 3 paused, 4 maintenance; inspect IsDisabled separately.

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": "monitor_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Rolling window length in days, from 1 through 90; default 7. Out-of-range values are rejected, not clamped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the non-deleted-monitor scope, a plan-feature prerequisite, and precise per-metric time bases (window vs all-time vs current). It does not state error behavior when the plan feature is missing, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, then dense but justified metric definitions; every clause carries information. It reads as an unbroken block of field definitions where a short enumerated list would scan faster, which costs it the top score.

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 must define return values, and it does so metric by metric (counts, avg response time, MTTR, LongestOutage, TotalIncidents, ActiveIncidents, status codes, IsDisabled). For a one-parameter read tool, that covers everything needed to interpret results 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in-schema (range 1-90, default 7, rejected not clamped). The description only echoes the 'rolling UTC window ending now' idea without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so this is the baseline 3.

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?

A concrete verb+resource ('Report ... organization monitors') with scope qualifiers: only non-deleted monitors, rolling UTC window ending now. It doesn't distinguish itself from overlap-prone siblings like monitor_metrics, incident_report, or organization_health_summary, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: 'requires the reporting plan feature' tells the agent a prerequisite exists, and the window description hints this is an aggregate/overview call. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over monitor_metrics or incident_report, and no 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 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?