Skip to main content
Glama

Ground Truth - Fresh Evidence for AI Agents

by io.github.anish632

List Monitors

list_monitors
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all monitors owned by this API key, with last run status and schedule. Requires a free watch key or paid API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
active_onlyNoWhen true returns only active monitors. Set false to include paused monitors.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
totalYesTotal number of monitors returned.
monitorsYesList of monitors belonging to this API key.
active_monitor_limitYesMaximum active monitors included in the current plan.
remaining_active_slotsYesActive monitor slots remaining for this API key.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds an authentication requirement ('free watch key or paid API key') that is not present in the annotations, and clarifies the resource scope. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, so credit is given for this extra context.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the auth requirement. There is zero waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description says 'all monitors' but the schema default active_only=true means only active monitors are returned unless the flag is set to false. This creates a subtle mismatch that could lead an agent to omit the parameter and get a narrower result than expected; the description should note the default filter.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter active_only is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb ('list'), resource ('monitors'), scope ('owned by this API key'), and returned data ('last run status and schedule'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_monitor, delete_monitor, and get_monitor_result.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_monitor_result or run_monitor_now. The use case must be inferred from the phrase 'List all monitors' rather than spelled out.

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

All Ground Truth - Fresh Evidence for AI Agents 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are several lightly overlapping pairs (check_endpoint/preflight_endpoint, check_pricing/compare_pricing_pages, estimate_market/compare_competitors, test_hypothesis/verify_claim). The detailed descriptions and explicit 'do not use for' notes mitigate confusion, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_endpoint, create_monitor, verify_claim). Even compound verbs like preflight_endpoint and run_monitor_now adhere to the same structure, making the naming fully predictable.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is slightly heavy but reasonable for the broad scope covering endpoint checks, pricing, compliance, package research, claim verification, and monitor lifecycle. Each tool has a distinct role, though the count edges close to the 'heavy' range.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well-covered: create/list/delete/get/run/preview monitors, single and comparative pricing checks, endpoint and security verification, and claim testing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_monitor tool or a way to explicitly verify a claim without pre-supplied evidence URLs, but these are workable.

Resources