Damper

Update Status Monitor

update_status_check

Idempotent

Edit a monitor. Passing headers replaces all stored headers; pass [] to clear them. http and ssl monitors require a public url; heartbeat monitors return a heartbeatUrl for your job to ping. Probe header values are write-only and never returned (hasHeaders reports whether any are set). Creating an enabled monitor runs it once immediately.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "checkId": "<checkId>"
    },
    "name": "update_status_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`name`	No
`method`	No
`checkId`	Yes	Monitor ID from list_status_checks
`groupId`	No
`headers`	No
`isPublic`	No
`checkType`	No
`isEnabled`	No
`projectId`	Yes	Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs.
`timeoutMs`	No
`description`	No
`sslWarningDays`	No
`includeInUptime`	No
`intervalSeconds`	No
`failureThreshold`	No
`successThreshold`	No
`expectedStatusMax`	No
`expectedStatusMin`	No
`heartbeatGraceMinutes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`check`	Yes
`dashboardUrl`	No	Full dashboard URL of the affected resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: headers are replace-all (with [] clearing them), probe header values are write-only and only surfaced via hasHeaders, and check-type-specific url requirements. The final sentence about "creating an enabled monitor" describes a different operation and is confusing in an edit tool, which keeps this from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Most sentences earn their place and the destructive header-replacement rule is front-loaded. However, the trailing sentence about creating an enabled monitor belongs to create_status_check and adds noise/misattribution to an edit tool's definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations already cover safety/idempotency. But for a 20-parameter mutation tool with 10% schema coverage, the description is too thin on the many tuning parameters an agent would have to guess at.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 10% across 20 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains headers, url-by-checkType, and (obliquely) isEnabled, but leaves intervalSeconds, timeoutMs, thresholds, sslWarningDays, expectedStatusMin/Max, groupId, isPublic, includeInUptime, method, name and description entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

"Edit a monitor" gives a specific verb and resource, and the surrounding sentences make clear it targets an existing status check (as opposed to create_status_check / delete_status_check). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

The description establishes preconditions (http/ssl need a public url, header replacement semantics) but never says when to reach for this tool versus create_status_check, update_status_group, or run_status_check. Usage is inferable from "Edit a monitor" but not spelled out.

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

All Damper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?