fluxproof_check_now
Run a monitor now and return a source- and hash-bound change receipt.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| monitor_id | Yes |
FluxProof
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to clarify side effects, failure modes, authentication requirements, or costs. The description only promises a receipt, leaving important behavioral context implicit.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits necessary operational context such as what the receipt contains, how to obtain required values, and what happens when the monitor fails. An agent would need to infer important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain api_key or monitor_id, and the schema provides no descriptions. With 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.
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 action ('Run a monitor now') and the expected output ('change receipt'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, list, offer, and preflight.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as on-demand triggers, scheduling, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.