Perform a one-time HTTP uptime check on a URL from a single location. Returns whether the site is up or down, HTTP status code, and response time in milliseconds. For multi-location checks, use uptime_check_multi instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL to check (e.g. https://github.com) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in milliseconds (default: 10000) |
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 full burden. It discloses the one-time execution, single-location scope, and the exact return values (up/down status, HTTP status code, response time in ms). While it does not discuss redirects or failure modes, for a simple read-only check this is solid coverage.
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 two sentences: first states the core function and outputs, second names the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-URL uptime check with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the specific output fields, and the only relevant alternative. It is complete within its low complexity context.
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%, so the URL and timeout parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Perform a one-time HTTP uptime check') and clearly identifies the resource (a URL) and scope (from a single location). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool uptime_check_multi by explicitly noting the multi-location alternative.
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 clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For multi-location checks, use uptime_check_multi instead.' It also notes the 'one-time' nature, implying it is not for continuous monitoring, which provides clear context against siblings like my_monitors or my_uptime_history.
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.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.
All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.
23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.
Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.
