Routebase

Get Monitor

get_monitor

Read-only

Get one monitor with its recent checks. The include flags pull in what the monitor detail page shows next to it: uptime and latency percentiles over 24h to 90d, the alert policy that applies (inherited or its own), its maintenance windows, and the fire/resolve history of its alerts. Requires project context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`monitorId`	Yes	Public ID (GUID) of the monitor, from list_monitors
`includeUptimeStats`	No	Include uptime percentages and response-time percentiles
`includeAlertHistory`	No	Include the fire/resolve history of this monitor's alerts
`includeEffectivePolicy`	No	Include the alert policy that applies to this monitor and where it comes from
`includeFreshnessWatches`	No	Include watched field paths and how long each value has been unchanged
`includeMaintenanceWindows`	No	Include the maintenance windows that cover this monitor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers read-only behavior, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds the behavioral note about requiring project context, but does not contradict the annotation or omit any necessary side-effect information beyond what the annotation covers.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the role of include flags.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, the purpose of the optional flags, and the prerequisite of project context. Given the simple nature of the tool and the complete parameter schema, nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds a conceptual grouping ('The include flags pull in what the monitor detail page shows next to it') that enhances understanding beyond individual parameter descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'Get one monitor with its recent checks.' It specifies the resource (monitor) and differentiates from list_monitors and get_monitor_checks by focusing on a single monitor with optional detailed include flags.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires project context') and explains the purpose of include flags, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_monitors or get_monitor_checks. The guidance is implied but not overt.

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

All Routebase 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.

Resources

Need Help?