See which endpoints of a collection are checked on a schedule (Pro/Team monitors) and how they are doing: state (healthy, failing, blip, paused, waiting), the last check with its status, latency and error, and since when it has been failing. Use it to find out what is broken in staging or production, then read the endpoint and its code. Read-only: people decide what to monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: people decide what to monitor.' It also discloses behavioral output details beyond annotations: state values, last check status, latency, error, and failure duration.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output specifics, use case, and read-only note. Every sentence adds value: purpose, result details, when to use, and safety.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains what is listed, enumerates returned state fields, gives a concrete use case, and notes plan/read-only constraints. It gives an agent enough to call it correctly and interpret results.
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?
The schema only describes collection_id as a required string, and schema coverage is 0%. The description indirectly clarifies its role by saying 'which endpoints of a collection,' but it does not explicitly explain the ID format, provenance, or how to obtain it, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'See which endpoints of a collection are checked on a schedule (Pro/Team monitors)' and details what information is provided. This clearly distinguishes monitors from sibling tools like list_api_collections or list_api_runs by focusing on scheduled checks and health status.
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 gives a clear context for use: 'Use it to find out what is broken in staging or production, then read the endpoint and its code.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is well defined.
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.
