Skip to main content
Glama

Uptimepage

by dev.uptimepage

List monitors

list_monitors
Read-only

List monitors with optional state/type/tag filters and cursor pagination. Each item carries its current state and last-checked time. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoFilter to monitors carrying this exact tag.
typeNoFilter by check kind: `http`, `tcp`, `ping`, `heartbeat`, `dns`, `tls_cert`, `domain_expiry`, `flow`.
stateNoFilter by current state: `up`, `down`, `degraded`, `error`, `no_data`.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous call's `next_cursor`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
next_cursorNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by mentioning cursor pagination and the fact that each item includes its current state and last-checked time. No contradictions.

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 short sentences front-load the verb and resource, then add essential detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers the core behavior (listing with filters and pagination) and discloses the item content. No significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the filters (state/type/tag) and cursor pagination, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It groups filters but does not deepen the understanding of each parameter.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('monitors'), and adds specific detail about optional filters and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor (singular) and list_incidents by resource and behavior.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list monitors with optional filters and pagination) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that get_monitor should be used for a single monitor, nor does it contrast with other list tools.

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

All Uptimepage toolsInspect
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

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: flow runs, step trends, incidents, incident metrics, monitors, monitor history, org health, org usage, status pages, notification channels, regions, status pages lists, and tags. The get_ vs list_ distinction is consistent and each pair (e.g., get_monitor vs list_monitors) is clearly separated by depth of detail. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using only 'get_' for single-item or aggregate detail and 'list_' for collections. Objects are consistently named (monitor, incident, status_page, org_*). This predictive pattern makes it easy to guess tool behavior from the name.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, this server sits at the upper bound of the well-scoped range, yet every tool fills a clear niche: monitoring details, history, incidents, flow-specific analytics, org-level views, and reference data (regions, tags, channels). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for a read-only monitoring API.

Completeness4/5

The read-only surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering monitors, incidents, flow runs, step trends, status pages, notification channels, regions, tags, and org health/usage. The only notable gap is the lack of any mutation tools (e.g., update_monitor, acknowledge_incident) which the descriptions hint at but do not expose, so agents cannot act on the information—only observe.

Resources