Heartbeat monitor & dead-man's-switch for AI agents, cron jobs & workers. Late ping emails you.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a heartbeat, getting its status, and sending a ping. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: create_heartbeat, get_heartbeat_status, ping_heartbeat.
With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a heartbeat monitoring service, covering creation, status retrieval, and pinging without unnecessary extras.
The surface covers the core workflow (create, status, ping), but lacks an explicit delete or update tool. However, the create tool mentions a claim_token for management, slightly mitigating the gap.
create_heartbeatAInspectCreate a Cronping heartbeat monitor (dead-man's-switch). Returns a ping_url to call on each successful run of your agent loop, worker, or cron job, plus a claim_token to manage it. If pings stop arriving within period+grace, Cronping raises an alert. No account required. After creating, send one verification ping (call ping_heartbeat with the returned id) to confirm setup — the check flips from 'new' to UP so you know it's wired correctly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label for what is monitored, e.g. "nightly-backup" or "research-agent-loop". | |
| No | Optional email address for DOWN and recovery alerts. | ||
| webhook_url | No | Optional https webhook (Slack/Discord/generic) for alerts. | |
| grace_seconds | No | Extra slack before marking DOWN, in seconds. Default 3600. | |
| period_seconds | No | How often you expect a ping, in seconds (min 60). Default 86400 (daily). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses alert condition (pings stop within period+grace), return values, no account requirement, and the verification step. Thoroughly explains the dead-man's-switch 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?
Concise, front-loaded with key purpose and returns. Four sentences cover creation, use case, alert behavior, and post-creation step. No fluff.
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 no output schema, description adequately explains return values (ping_url, claim_token) and the verification step. Covers all necessary context for a creation tool with 5 parameters.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra context beyond schema (e.g., references period+grace collectively) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond their schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it creates a Cronping heartbeat monitor (dead-man's-switch), specifies return values (ping_url, claim_token), and explains the monitoring mechanism. Distinguishes from siblings get_heartbeat_status and ping_heartbeat by focusing on creation.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use (for monitoring agent loops, workers, cron jobs) and includes a post-creation step (verification ping). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to sibling tools, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_heartbeat_statusAInspectGet the live status of a Cronping check (up/down/new, last ping time, ping count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| claim_token | Yes | The claim_token returned by create_heartbeat. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live status with specific fields, suggesting it is a read-only operation. However, it does not address idempotency, error behavior, or auth requirements beyond the claim_token parameter.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (up/down/new, last ping time, ping count). It provides enough information for basic use, though additional context on error states would improve completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% (only claim_token described). The description does not add meaning for the 'id' parameter or elaborate on how parameters relate to the returned status. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 states the tool retrieves the live status of a check, listing specific fields (up/down/new, last ping time, ping count). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'create_heartbeat' and 'ping_heartbeat' by focusing on status retrieval.
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 description implies use for checking status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ping_heartbeatAInspectSend a heartbeat signal to a Cronping check. signal="success" (default) marks it UP and resets the timer; "start" records that a run began (for duration); "fail" marks it DOWN immediately and alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The check id returned by create_heartbeat. | |
| signal | No | success | start | fail. Default success. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the behavioral impact of each signal value: 'success' marks UP and resets timer, 'start' records run began for duration, 'fail' marks DOWN immediately and alerts. This is sufficient for a simple signal tool.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information about the tool's function and the three signal types. No unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has no output schema and only two parameters with full schema coverage. The description explains the core behavior well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or error), but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of each signal enum value. For 'id', it adds context that it is 'returned by create_heartbeat,' which is helpful.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Send a heartbeat signal to a Cronping check.' This is a specific verb-action on a resource. The sibling tools 'create_heartbeat' and 'get_heartbeat_status' imply different operations, so this tool is well-differentiated.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it provides clear guidance on the three signal types and their effects, which helps the agent choose the correct signal. No 'when not to use' advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
