UptyBots

Get daily statistics

get_stats_daily

Read-onlyIdempotent

Response time and uptime for one monitor aggregated per day, with min, max, average and p95. This is the tool for reports and trends over weeks or months, and for comparing one monitor against another over the same window. When a single day looks wrong, zoom into it with get_stats_hourly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, 1-based. Defaults to 1.
`dateTo`	No	Last day to include, as YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`dateFrom`	No	First day to include, as YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to the start of available history.
`monitorId`	Yes	Monitor id, as returned by list_monitors.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	The rows on this page.
`totalItems`	No	Total 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 this as a safe read/idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: daily aggregation, the included metrics (min, max, average, p95), and the suggested zoom-in workflow with hourly stats. It does not discuss pagination, but the output schema and parameter descriptions partially cover operational details.

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 pack the core purpose, metrics, use case, and the relationship to the hourly tool with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the complete parameter schema, and the strong usage guidance, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it relates to the sibling hourly 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 the parameters are already well documented with defaults and types. The description adds context around date windows for reports/trends, but it does not add meaningfully new details for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool aggregates response time and uptime per day with min, max, average, and p95, identifying the resource as monitor statistics. It also distinguishes itself from get_stats_hourly by specifying daily aggregation.

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?

The description explicitly says this is the tool for reports and trends over weeks or months and for comparing monitors over the same window. It also gives a concrete exclusion: when a single day looks wrong, use get_stats_hourly instead.

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

All UptyBots tools Inspect

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

Need Help?