Fixter

create_api_test

Define an API test — a scheduled test of a production HTTP endpoint or MCP server: request + assertions (status/latency/headers/body or MCP tier) executed on an interval, tracking uptime and correctness. Use this to start watching an HTTP endpoint or an MCP server. Set type="HTTP" and the httpTarget/statusPattern params for a web endpoint, or type="MCP" and the mcpTarget params for an MCP server. Returns the created API test, including its generated id and current state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name for the API test, e.g. 'checkout API health'
`type`	Yes	API test type: 'HTTP' for a web endpoint, 'MCP' for an MCP server
`mcpUrl`	No	MCP only: the MCP server URL to probe
`enabled`	Yes	Whether the API test starts enabled (scheduled) or paused
`httpUrl`	No	HTTP only: the http(s) URL to probe
`mcpTier`	No	MCP only: assertion depth — HANDSHAKE (just connect), TOOLS_LIST (check expectedTools are advertised) or TOOL_CALL (invoke a tool)
`retries`	Yes	Retries per run before recording a failure (0-5)
`httpBody`	No	HTTP only: request body to send
`toolName`	No	MCP TOOL_CALL tier: name of the tool to invoke
`httpMethod`	No	HTTP only: request method — GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE or HEAD
`httpHeaders`	No	HTTP only: request headers to send, as a name->value map
`expectedTools`	No	MCP TOOLS_LIST tier: tool names the server must advertise
`statusPattern`	No	HTTP only: expected status matcher — 3 chars, digits or 'x' wildcards. '200' matches exactly 200; '2xx' matches any 2xx; '20x' matches 200-209
`headerMatchers`	No	HTTP only: response headers that must match, as a name->value map
`timeoutSeconds`	Yes	Per-run timeout in seconds; must be positive and not exceed intervalSeconds
`intervalSeconds`	Yes	How often to run the API test, in seconds (minimum 30)
`mcpCredentialId`	No	MCP only: id of a stored credential to authenticate the MCP session
`failureThreshold`	Yes	Consecutive failing runs before the API test flips to DOWN (1-10)
`httpCredentialId`	No	HTTP only: id of a stored credential to authenticate the request (from list_api_test_credentials); omit for an unauthenticated call
`maxLatencyMillis`	No	HTTP only: fail if response takes longer than this many milliseconds
`toolArgumentsJson`	No	MCP TOOL_CALL tier: JSON object of arguments to pass to the tool
`bodyValidationTier`	No	HTTP only: body validation tier — NONE, VALID_JSON, JSON_SHAPE or EXACT_MATCH
`mcpMaxLatencyMillis`	No	MCP only: fail if the API test takes longer than this many milliseconds
`bodyValidationSample`	No	HTTP only: sample body for JSON_SHAPE (a shape template) or EXACT_MATCH tiers
`mcpResultValidationTier`	No	MCP TOOL_CALL tier: result body validation tier — NONE, VALID_JSON, JSON_SHAPE or EXACT_MATCH
`mcpResultValidationSample`	No	MCP TOOL_CALL tier: sample result for JSON_SHAPE/EXACT_MATCH validation

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the scheduled/interval execution, tracking of uptime/correctness, and return of the created test with id and current state. This goes beyond a simple create by explaining ongoing behavior, though it omits potential permissions or immediate execution details.

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?

Four sentences efficiently cover purpose, type selection, and return info. Every sentence adds something, though 'Use this to start watching' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite having 26 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview including purpose, mode selection, and return value. The detailed parameter behavior is left to the schema descriptions, which are complete. It lacks deeper details like error handling but is adequate for a complex creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description introduces inaccurate parameter names ('httpTarget', 'mcpTarget') that don't exist in the schema (actual names are httpUrl and mcpUrl). The type-grouping advice is useful but the errors could mislead an agent into passing invalid parameters, undermining the added value.

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 creates a scheduled API test for HTTP endpoints or MCP servers, with a specific verb ('Define') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_api_test_credential and update_api_test by focusing on the creation of the test itself.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Use this to start watching an HTTP endpoint or an MCP server') and provides type-specific guidance (set type='HTTP' or 'MCP' with relevant params). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for modification, so not a full 5.

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

All Fixter 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tool pairs are near-duplicates, including three deprecated aliases (add_investigation_alert_channel vs add_alert_channel, list_investigation_alert_channels vs list_alert_channels, remove_investigation_alert_channel vs remove_alert_channel) that muddy the surface. Additionally, suppress_signal and create_ignore_rule both suppress alerting via different mechanisms, which could cause misselection despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_api_test, list_issues, set_alert_rule_status). A few bare-noun tools (logs, spans, metrics) and the standalone verb correlate break the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is highly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is on the extreme end of the calibration scale. Even accounting for the broad scope of an observability platform, the count is excessive and includes several deprecated redundancies that inflate it further.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all major domains: alert rules (create, read, update, delete, status, delivery, preview), API tests (create, read, update, delete, run history, credentials), ignore rules and suppressions, issues with digest config, investigations with claim/read, channels, credentials, and rich query tools (logs, spans, metrics, SQL, traces, correlation). No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.

Resources

Need Help?