Uptime history for an MCP endpoint over the last N days (max 30), with incident windows. Reads stored history; does not probe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL of the MCP endpoint to inspect. | |
| days | No | Window in days. Default 30. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads stored history rather than probing, which prevents misuse for live checks. It also notes the 30-day maximum, adding useful operational context beyond the schema.
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 sentences with no fluff, purpose first, then behavioral note. Every word earns its place and the structure is ideal.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand inputs and high-level output ('incident windows'). Some detail on return format is missing, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the window limit but adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'url' and 'days.'
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 returns 'uptime history for an MCP endpoint' over a configurable window, including 'incident windows.' This specifies both the resource and scope, and stands apart from siblings like check_mcp_endpoint (likely live checks) and check_schema_drift.
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?
It explains this is read-only historical data by saying 'Reads stored history; does not probe,' implicitly distinguishing it from live-probing tools. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for live checks, so it's not a full 5.
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 are clearly distinct: get_known_tools and get_uptime read history, while check_mcp_endpoint is a general live probe. The only potential confusion is between check_mcp_endpoint and check_schema_drift, as both involve schema changes, but their descriptions clarify that one is a broad health check and the other is a focused diff.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_ for active probes and get_ for historical retrievals. This makes the tool's behavior predictable from its name.
Four tools is well-scoped for a validator/monitoring server, covering live checks and historical reads without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers live probing, schema drift detection, and historical views of tools and uptime. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all monitored endpoints or manage snapshots, but for the stated purpose the core operations are present.