Check if a website is up or down from 7 global locations simultaneously: Amsterdam, Sydney, London, Frankfurt, Delhi, Warsaw, and South Carolina. Returns status, response time, and HTTP status code for each location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL to check (e.g. https://github.com) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) |
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 transparency burden. It discloses the action and return values (status, response time, HTTP code) for each location, which is helpful. However, it does not mention behavioral traits such as how 'up' is determined, the fact that 7 concurrent requests are sent to the target, or error handling, leaving some gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists the locations and return values. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the primary function and return values, which is sufficient since there is no output schema. It lacks minor details like edge cases or the exact meaning of 'status', but overall it provides a complete understanding for a tool of this simplicity.
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 input schema fully describes both parameters (url and timeout) with explanations and a default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high 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 clearly states the action ('Check if a website is up or down') and the specific resource ('from 7 global locations simultaneously'), listing the exact locations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uptime_check by emphasizing the multi-location aspect, making its unique purpose explicit.
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 geographically distributed uptime monitoring by mentioning '7 global locations simultaneously', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like uptime_check or provide exclusions. The context is clear, but direct guidance is missing.
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.
