Watchpup

Instant URL check (no account needed)

check_url

Read-only

Check any public URL RIGHT NOW: is it up, HTTP status, response time in ms. With kind:"mcp" it instead performs a real JSON-RPC initialize handshake against a streamable-HTTP MCP server endpoint and reports the server’s self-declared name/version/protocol — useful to tell "the MCP server is down" from "my client is misconfigured". Works without an API key (rate limit 30/hour per IP). For continuous monitoring with alerts, use create_monitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL to check, e.g. https://example.com — for kind=mcp the MCP endpoint URL, e.g. https://mcp.deepwiki.com/mcp
`kind`	No	What to speak: plain HTTP (default) or an MCP initialize handshake

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: no API key required, rate limit of 30/hour per IP, and the exact MCP handshake behavior that reports server name/version/protocol to distinguish server-down from client-misconfigured.

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 action-first, leading with what the tool does, then the mcp variant, then authentication/rate-limit context, and finally the alternative tool. Every sentence adds useful information without redundant filler, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both modes, the nature of the results (status, response time, MCP server details), usage prerequisites, and the appropriate alternative. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'url' and 'kind' with descriptive text. The description adds some intent and an example for kind=mcp, but does not significantly expand on what the parameter definitions already provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check any public URL for uptime, HTTP status, and response time. It also clearly differentiates the 'mcp' mode as a JSON-RPC initialize handshake, distinguishing this tool from the sibling create_monitor.

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 explicitly says to use create_monitor for continuous monitoring with alerts, providing a clear alternative and condition. It also notes the tool works without an API key and has a rate limit, giving practical context for when to use it.

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

All Watchpup tools Inspect

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. There is no overlap between monitor lifecycle tools (create, get, update, delete, list), incident tools (list, ack, note), or utility tools (check_url, get_account, get_status_page). The descriptions explicitly differentiate check_url from create_monitor, eliminating confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: ack_incident, add_incident_note, check_url, create_monitor, delete_monitor, get_account, get_monitor, get_status_page, list_channels, list_incidents, list_monitors, update_monitor. No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb forms exist.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a monitoring service. Each tool serves a purposeful function without redundancy, covering monitor management, incident handling, and account/status information.

Completeness4/5

Monitor lifecycle is complete with CRUD plus list. Incidents have list, acknowledge, and note tools, which covers the core incident workflow. Minor gaps include no channel management (only list_channels) and no way to discover status pages (get_status_page requires a known slug), but these are peripheral and workable for most use cases.

Resources

Need Help?