Skip to main content
Glama

heartbeat-monitor

by dev.workers.cronping-oren.cronping

create_heartbeat

Create 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. Alternatively, pass pull_url to make a PULL check: Cronping fetches that URL on schedule and alerts if it fails — for targets that can't call a ping URL (a health endpoint, status page, or API).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesLabel for what is monitored, e.g. "nightly-backup" or "research-agent-loop".
emailNoEmail address for DOWN and recovery alerts. STRONGLY RECOMMENDED — without an email or webhook_url, Cronping tracks status but cannot notify anyone when the job stops, which defeats the purpose. Use your operator's email.
pull_urlNoOptional. If set, creates a PULL check instead: Cronping itself fetches this URL every period_seconds and alerts if it fails — use for a target that can't call a ping URL (a public health endpoint, status page, or API). No ping needed.
stuck_afterNoOptional. Flip to STUCK if the progress_token passed to ping_heartbeat stays identical for this many consecutive runs (default 3, 0 disables). Catches zombie runs that keep pinging but make no progress.
webhook_urlNohttps webhook (Slack/Discord/generic) for DOWN and recovery alerts. Set this OR email so someone is actually notified when the monitored job goes silent.
grace_secondsNoExtra slack before marking DOWN, in seconds. Default 3600.
pull_containsNoOptional (pull checks only). The fetched response body must contain this text to count as UP; otherwise Cronping alerts.
period_secondsNoHow often you expect a ping, in seconds (min 60). Default 86400 (daily).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return values (ping_url, claim_token), the state transition from 'new' to UP after verification, the alerting behavior when pings stop, and the pull check semantics. It also notes that no account is required and that without email/webhook_url, no one gets notified. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is longer than minimal but every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, explaining the verification step, and detailing the pull check alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Slightly dense, but content-rich and logically organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully accounts for the return values (ping_url, claim_token) and the id used for verification. It explains the different modes (ping vs pull), the alerting condition, and the setup confirmation step. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is a complete and context-rich description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the overall workflow (verification ping, pull vs ping) and the purpose of returned values. However, it does not elaborate on individual numeric parameters beyond what the schema already says, so it doesn't reach the top score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Cronping heartbeat monitor'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (ping_heartbeat sends pings, get_heartbeat_status reads status, set_heartbeat_alert modifies alerts) by focusing on creation and the returned artifacts. The dead-man's-switch concept is explained, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for monitoring agent loops, workers, or cron jobs. It also explains when to use the pull_url alternative instead ('for targets that can't call a ping URL'), and gives a recommended follow-up action (send one verification ping). It warns about the email/webhook requirement, helping the agent decide whether to set those parameters.

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

All heartbeat-monitor 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 has a clearly distinct role: create, delete, status check, bulk import from crontab, pause/resume, ping, and alert configuraiton. No two tools appear to perform the same action, and the descriptions reinforce their separation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, delete_, pause_, ping_, set_). 'import_crontab' deviates slightly by naming the input format rather than the domain object, but it remains readable and fits the verb-based convention.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well within the ideal range for a focused heartbeat-monitoring server. Each tool represents a necessary operation without bloat or redundant overlap.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: create, ping, pause/resume, alert setup, status, delete, and bulk import. Missing update functionality for period/grace and no list-all-heartbeats operation are notable but non-blocking gaps for the core dead-man's-switch workflow.

Resources