Skip to main content
Glama

heartbeat-monitor

by dev.workers.cronping-oren.cronping

import_crontab

Arm a dead-man's-switch for EVERY line of a crontab in one call. Paste raw crontab text; Cronping parses each schedule, derives the expected interval from the cron expression itself (using the longest gap between runs so weekend/twice-daily schedules don't false-alarm), and creates one heartbeat monitor per job. Returns, for each line, a ping_url plus the same command with && curl -fsS <ping_url> already appended so you can drop it straight back into the crontab. Also anchors each new check's first deadline to the schedule's real next run — so a fresh switch neither pages at t=0 nor sleeps a full period. No account required. Ideal when an agent or operator wants to instrument a whole box's scheduled jobs at once. Up to 20 lines per call. Lines with no fixed interval (e.g. @reboot) are skipped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoOptional. Email address for DOWN and recovery alerts, applied to every check created. STRONGLY RECOMMENDED — without it the checks track status but cannot notify anyone.
crontabYesRaw crontab text, one job per line (comments and FOO=bar env lines are ignored). Standard 5-field expressions plus @daily/@hourly/@weekly/@monthly/@yearly macros and named days/months are supported.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals detailed behavioral aspects: it parses schedules, derives intervals, creates monitors, returns ping_url and modified commands, anchors deadlines to real next runs, and explains the dead-man's-switch logic. It also notes edge cases and limitations, providing full transparency beyond the minimal annotations.

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 efficiently structured, leading with the main purpose and then detailing mechanics, returns, and limitations in a logical flow. Each sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy, being appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 covers all essential context: what the tool does, how it processes input, what it returns, operational limits, and special cases like skipped lines and deadline anchoring. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and prerequisites, even without an output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters (email and crontab) are fully described in the schema, and the description adds context: email is for alerts, crontab parsing ignores comments and env lines, and supports macros and named days. This enriches understanding beyond the raw schema, achieving full semantic coverage.

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 primary action: 'Arm a dead-man's-switch for EVERY line of a crontab in one call.' It specifies the resource (crontab) and the operation (import/arm), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual heartbeats.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Paste raw crontab text; Cronping parses each schedule...' and includes key constraints like 'Up to 20 lines per call' and 'Lines with no fixed interval (e.g. @reboot) are skipped,' which guide when and how to use the tool.

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