record_failure
Explicitly mark a run as FAILED for a monitor (same as GET https://golemreach.com/heartbeat/fail/). The monitor goes DOWN immediately and alerts fire.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Heartbeat — dead-man switch for cron jobs & AI agents
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate side effect (monitor goes DOWN, alerts fire), which is critical behavioral information for a mutation tool. It doesn't mention reversibility or idempotency, but the disclosed side effects are the most important behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action and consequence are front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a compact disambiguator. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the resource, and the immediate effect. The only gap is not explaining what 'key' refers to or how to obtain it, but the endpoint reference partially covers that. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the endpoint path includes <key>, which implies the key identifies the monitor, but it doesn't explicitly explain what the key is or where to find it. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves the key's semantics partially implicit.
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 ('Explicitly mark a run as FAILED'), the resource (a monitor), and the immediate consequence (monitor goes DOWN, alerts fire). It also names the exact HTTP endpoint equivalent, which disambiguates it from siblings like ping_heartbeat and get_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this is the tool to use when a run should be marked failed, and the endpoint reference distinguishes it from ping_heartbeat (which presumably marks success). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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'.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.