get_monitoring_settingsGet the project's monitoring defaults: how long check history is kept, the default check interval, timeout, incident threshold and schema validation mode, and whether monitors are created automatically when a spec is published. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Public ID (GUID) of the project — defaults to the project in the session context |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation, and the description reinforces this by listing what information is retrieved. It adds useful detail about the returned data without contradicting the annotation, though it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant or filler content. It leads with the main action and resource, then efficiently lists the relevant fields and the context requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and notes the project context requirement. The input schema covers the parameter. It does not describe error cases or permissions, but these are not essential for such a straightforward read-only getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, projectId, is fully described in the input schema with its default and meaning. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource ('project's monitoring defaults') and enumerates the specific fields returned (check history retention, check interval, timeout, incident threshold, schema validation mode, automatic monitor creation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor or get_monitoring_sync_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'Requires project context' gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over related alternatives such as get_monitoring_sync_status or get_testing_settings. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.