Get an overview of all cron monitors — total count, counts per status (up/down/grace/new), and a summary list. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | API key (x-api-key header value) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the API key requirement and the response content, implying a read-only GET operation, but does not explicitly state safety (read-only), rate limits, or error handling. The API key note provides some transparency beyond the schema, but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get an overview') and efficiently lists key outputs. No redundant or filler content.
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 adequately describes the return content (status counts and summary list) for a simple tool. It does not specify pagination or formatting, but for an overview tool this is likely sufficient. The tool's simplicity and single parameter make the description reasonably complete.
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% for the single api_key parameter, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The description's 'Requires API key' merely reinforces the schema, providing no additional syntax or usage detail.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get an overview of all cron monitors' with specific output details (total count, counts per status, summary list). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_monitor_status and list_monitors, which focus on individual monitors or full lists.
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 implies usage for high-level monitoring overviews but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_monitors or get_monitor_status. It only notes the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources/actions, but get_dashboard and list_monitors both provide overviews. Descriptions clarify their roles, so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (create_monitor, get_dashboard, get_monitor_status, get_ping_history, list_monitors, ping_monitor). No deviations.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a cron monitoring service, covering creation, status checking, history, and pinging without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (create, monitor, ping) is present, but there is no update or delete monitor operation, which is a significant gap for managing monitors over time.