Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InfraNest

by io.infranest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List monitors

list_monitors
Read-onlyIdempotent

A paginated list of your monitors with their type, target, interval, current status, 24-hour uptime, a 24-hour status chart (uptime_chart_24h, one status per hour) and the last 30 days (bars_30d, one entry per day with its date d, uptime p and colour c, ending yesterday, and for your own monitors s, the day’s status as the monitor’s own page draws it), plus status counts in meta. Filter with search, type, kind (own or external), status, enabled and tag, and sort with sort and dir; pass all=true for a plain unpaginated list of every monitor. Narrow with status, type, search or tag before paging. For what is down right now status_overview answers in one call; for one monitor's history use monitor_stats or monitor_results.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_monitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoOnly things with this tag id.
pageNoPage number, from 1.
typeNoOnly monitors of this kind.
searchNoMatches monitor name or target.
statusNoOnly monitors in this state.
per_pageNoRows per page, up to 200 (default 25).
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 / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "http",
-  "port",
-  "ssl",
-  "dns",
-  "keyword",
-  "redirect",
-  "ping",
-  "api",
-  "heartbeat",
-  "third_party"
-]New value: +[
+  "http",
+  "port",
+  "ssl",
+  "dns",
+  "keyword",
+  "redirect",
+  "ping",
+  "api",
+  "heartbeat",
+  "third_party",
+  "grpc",
+  "websocket"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them by spelling out response shape: uptime_chart_24h granularity, bars_30d field meanings and that it ends yesterday, and that meta carries status counts. It stops short of stating rate limits or pagination envelope details, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the single opening sentence is extremely long with deeply nested parentheticals unpacking bars_30d fields (d, p, c, s), which is hard to parse. The content is largely worthwhile but could be restructured into shorter sentences.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, describing the returned row structure is appropriate and mostly done well. However, the completeness is undermined by the description referencing filters and flags the schema lacks and omitting the three real pagination/org parameters, leaving the agent with an inconsistent picture of the call surface.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description names filters `kind`, `enabled`, `sort`, `dir` and the flag `all=true`, none of which exist in the input schema, while the schema's `page`, `per_page` and `organization_id` are never mentioned in the description. An agent following the prose would try to pass parameters the tool does not accept, which is actively misleading despite the schema itself being fully documented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (paginated list of monitors) and enumerates what each row carries: type, target, interval, status, 24h uptime, chart fields, and status counts. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_monitor or list_servers.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing: 'Narrow with status, type, search or tag before paging', names status_overview for what is down right now, and monitor_stats/monitor_results for a single monitor's history. When-to-use and alternatives are both spelled out.

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

All InfraNest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources