Full current state of one monitor: status, 30-day uptime %, schedule, last ping, alert config, recent event history and its public URLs. Look up by name OR by your secret key; key lookups additionally return the private ping/fail URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | monitor key (private lookup; also returns ping/fail URLs) | |
| name | No | monitor name (public lookup) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: private key lookups return additional ping/fail URLs, while name lookups return only public URLs. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences convey returned fields, lookup methods, and access-level differences. Information is front-loaded and every clause adds value with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and URL differences. However, it omits guidance on whether exactly one of key/name must be supplied and what happens if both or neither are provided, which is relevant for a zero-required-parameter tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mostly restates the key/name distinction and adds minor context ('secret key', 'ping/fail URLs'), but does not substantially go 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('one monitor'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, uptime, schedule, last ping, alert config, event history, URLs). It clearly differentiates from list_heartbeats by emphasizing a single monitor's full state.
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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: retrieving full current state for one monitor. It also explains the two lookup modes (by name or secret key) and what each reveals, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct action: creating a monitor, checking one monitor's full state, listing monitors, signaling success, and recording failure. get_status and list_heartbeats are the closest pair, but their cardinality and detail level make them easy to tell apart.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-first pattern: create, get, list, ping, record. The nouns are all meaningful in the heartbeat domain, and there is no mixing of camelCase or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run'.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused dead-man switch service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The core loop is covered: create a monitor, ping success, record failure, and inspect status. However, there is no update, delete, or disarm tool, so changing monitor configuration or retiring a job leaves an active monitor that will eventually go down and alert.