Skip to main content
Glama

Get a monitor

get_monitor
Read-onlyIdempotent

One monitor with its settings, alert channels, tags, dependencies, maintenance windows, the status pages it appears on, its 30 most recent results and the interval it actually runs at under your plan. region_auto is true when InfraNest picked the monitor’s one region for you; it measures that choice when you create the monitor and again every week (region_placed_at, the last time), and moves the monitor only to a region that is clearly faster or when the region’s probes are unavailable. Choosing regions yourself turns it off. When a monitor checked from one region fails, another probe checks it once before the failure counts: the failed result then carries meta.second_opinion with the place it failed from, the place that checked it again (by) and the verdict — confirmed (the failure counted) or contradicted (it did not, and nothing was alerted). A monitor that watches a third-party status page also carries external_service with its components (each with the status it reads as — up, degraded or down — and, where the page gives it, vendor_status, the provider's own word, such as under_maintenance), uptime_90d, and provider_incidents: the incidents open on that status page that touch the components the monitor follows, each with its title, the provider’s vendor_status, its impact (up, degraded or down), a url to the provider’s page, the components it names and the updates the provider posted, newest first. Each incident also carries its key, the provider’s own id for it (its title when the page gives none), which is what you send to say an incident does not affect you; provider_verdicts lists the incidents of that status page you said do not affect you, with the keys each covers, its title, who said so (by) and when (at), until the provider closes them. provider_month says, for this calendar month, how many incidents the provider had on the components the monitor follows, how many of them reached your own monitors (grouped under it, or failing while it lasted, among the monitors that sit behind that provider) and for how many minutes. provider_probe is what InfraNest's probes saw of the provider's open incident, when it names a place one of them stands in or near: state confirmed (one of your monitors behind the provider failed from there, named in failing) or no_effect (they were checked from there and all came back up), with the place, whether the probe is only near it (in the same country), how many monitors were checked and since when; null when there is no such incident, probe or check to go on. One monitor's settings, target, alert channels and current state. For its uptime and response times use monitor_stats; for individual checks monitor_results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesThe monitor id, from list_monitors or the number of a search hit monitor:N.
organization_idNoThe organization to read. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / monitor_id / description
      Previous value: -"The monitor id, from list_monitors."New value: +"The monitor id, from list_monitors or the number of a search hit monitor:N."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead adds genuine semantics an agent cannot get elsewhere — that `region_auto` may have moved the monitor, that a failed check gets a second probe, and what `confirmed` vs `contradicted` verdicts mean. It discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or cost, and most of the text describes response contents rather than the tool's behavior, keeping it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single unbroken block of roughly 400 words that unpacks deeply nested incident, verdict and probe structures before the reader has been told plainly what the tool does. With no output schema some return-value explanation is warranted, but the level of detail on vendor incident keys, monthly rollups and null conditions far exceeds what tool selection requires and is not structured for scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full return-shape burden, and it does so thoroughly — every non-obvious field (`meta.second_opinion`, `provider_verdicts`, `provider_probe`) is explained along with its null case. The complexity of the payload justifies the length; only the lack of structure keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the `monitor:N` search-hit idiom and the single-org omission rule. The description adds nothing about `monitor_id` or `organization_id`, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb+resource (return one monitor) and enumerates the configuration payload it carries, which clearly separates it from monitor_stats and monitor_results. However, the core purpose statement is buried mid-paragraph in a 400-word wall, and a second restatement ("One monitor's settings, target, alert channels and current state") is tacked on at the end rather than front-loaded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit sibling routing: "For its uptime and response times use monitor_stats; for individual checks monitor_results." That is real alternative-naming. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. when to prefer list_monitors or search), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.