Skip to main content
Glama

UptyBots

by com.uptybots

Get notification history

get_notifications
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the alerts this account has sent, across email, Telegram, webhook and the web interface, with the delivery outcome of each. Use it to answer "was I actually told about this outage" and to find a channel that is silently failing - a monitor can be detecting downtime correctly while its webhook has been rejecting every delivery. Covers the whole account, not one monitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, 1-based. Defaults to 1.
statusNoReturn only alerts with this delivery status.
channelNoReturn only alerts sent through this channel. Omit for all channels.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesThe rows on this page.
totalItemsNoTotal across all pages, not just this one.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about delivery outcome and whole-account scope, enriching the behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage examples, then scope. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, and scope thoroughly. It doesn't need to repeat return details or safety hints. Complete for a read-only query tool.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds context (e.g., channels, delivery outcome) but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states it reads alerts sent by the account across all channels with delivery outcomes. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on notifications rather than monitors, and explicitly says it covers the whole account, not one monitor.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit use cases: answering 'was I actually told about this outage' and finding silently failing channels. It also contrasts with monitor detection issues, implying when this tool is appropriate, and clarifies it is not monitor-specific.

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

All UptyBots toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six monitor creation tools are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions (e.g., HTTP vs API vs SSL vs domain), and lifecycle tools like delete, pause, resume, and list are unambiguous. Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_http_monitor, get_stats_hourly, pause_monitor). No mixed conventions or vague verbs; the pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools is on the higher end of the ideal range, but each tool earns its place. The count reflects a comprehensive monitoring surface without unnecessary redundancy. Slightly over the typical sweet spot, but justified by the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers creation, deletion, pause/resume, listing, retrieval, incident history, and two levels of statistics, plus notifications. A notable gap is the absence of an update/edit tool for existing monitors, which agents may need to adjust configurations. Otherwise, the lifecycle is well covered.

Resources