Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Phare

by io.phare.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a monitor report

get_monitor_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the availability, downtime, incident count, MTTR and MTBF of a monitor by ID, with its incidents, between two past dates up to 1 year apart, the last 30 days by default.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_monitor_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd of the reporting window, defaults to now. Must be after `from` and not in the future, required when `from` is provided.
fromNoStart of the reporting window, defaults to 30 days ago. Must be in the past, required when `to` is provided.
monitor_idYesID of the monitor to report on
project_idYesID of the project to act on, see whoami

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoMonitor ID
mtbfNoMean time between failures (MTBF) for this monitor, in seconds
mttrNoMean time to recovery (MTTR) for this monitor, in seconds
nameNoMonitor name
downtimeNoTotal downtime for this monitor in seconds
incidentsNoIncidents that affected this monitor in the selected range
availabilityNoAvailability for this monitor in the selected range, as a percentage
incident_countNoNumber of incidents affecting this monitor in the selected range
highest_incident_impactNoHighest impact level observed for this monitor in the selected range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "availability": {
+      "description": "Availability for this monitor in the selected range, as a percentage",
+      "examples": [
+        99.944
+      ],
+      "format": "float",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "downtime": {
+      "description": "Total downtime for this monitor in seconds",
+      "examples": [
+        1500
+      ],
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "highest_incident_impact": {
+      "description": "Highest impact level observed for this monitor in the selected range",
+      "enum": [
+        "unknown",
+        "operational",
+        "maintenance",
+        "degraded_performance",
+        "partial_outage",
+        "major_outage"
+      ],
+      "examples": [
+        "major_outage"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Monitor ID",
+      "examples": [
+        12
+      ],
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "incident_count": {
+      "description": "Number of incidents affecting this monitor in the selected range",
+      "examples": [
+        2
+      ],
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "incidents": {
+      "description": "Incidents that affected this monitor in the selected range",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "Date of creation for the entity",
+            "format": "date-time",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "description": "Description of the error that caused the incident",
+            "examples": [
+              "The server answered with an unexpected status code: 503."
+            ],
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "exclude_from_downtime": {
+            "description": "Flag to exclude the incident from downtime calculations",
+            "examples": [
+              false
+            ],
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "examples": [
+              1
+            ],
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "impact": {
+            "description": "Incident impact",
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "operational",
+              "maintenance",
+              "degraded_performance",
+              "partial_outage",
+              "major_outage"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "incident_at": {
+            "description": "Date of incident confirmation, defaults to the current date on creation. Must be within the last year and no more than 10 minutes in the future.",
+            "format": "date-time",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "monitors": {
+            "description": "List of monitors linked to the incident",
+            "examples": [
+              [
+                1,
+                2,
+                3
+              ]
+            ],
+            "items": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "project_id": {
+            "description": "Parent project ID",
+            "examples": [
+              1
+            ],
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "recovery_at": {
+            "description": "Date of incident recovery. Must be after `incident_at`, within the last year and no more than 10 minutes in the future. Cannot be removed once the incident is recovered.",
+            "format": "date-time",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "slug": {
+            "description": "Incident unique slug name",
+            "examples": [
+              "APP-123"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Incident state",
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "investigating",
+              "identified",
+              "monitoring",
+              "resolved"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Incident status",
+            "enum": [
+              "ongoing",
+              "recovering",
+              "recovered"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tags": {
+            "description": "Resource tags, made of lowercase letters, numbers, `.`, `_`, `:` and `-`. An organization can have up to 200 tags.",
+            "items": {
+              "examples": [
+                "environment:production"
+              ],
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": [
+              "array",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Incident title",
+            "examples": [
+              "Service is not working as expected"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Incident type",
+            "enum": [
+              "monitor",
+              "manual"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "Date of last update for the entity",
+            "format": "date-time",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "mtbf": {
+      "description": "Mean time between failures (MTBF) for this monitor, in seconds",
+      "examples": [
+        43200
+      ],
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "mttr": {
+      "description": "Mean time to recovery (MTTR) for this monitor, in seconds",
+      "examples": [
+        750
+      ],
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Monitor name",
+      "examples": [
+        "Website"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the 1-year maximum window and the past-only restriction, which are real behavioral constraints, but says nothing about result shape, aggregation semantics or behavior when the monitor has no data in the window.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned metrics before the date constraints. It is densely packed, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety; the date-window rules are stated. The only remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to the related get_report tool for project-level aggregates.

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%, so from/to, monitor_id and project_id are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description reinforces the default window and adds a 1-year maximum span that the schema does not state, but bundles it so tersely that it does not materially deepen parameter understanding.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (monitor report) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: availability, downtime, incident count, MTTR and MTBF. The monitor-scoped framing implicitly separates it from the sibling get_report (project-level), though it never names that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description supplies the operative defaults (last 30 days) and a hard limit (up to 1 year apart) plus a past-only constraint, which tells an agent how to call it. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to get_report, so the agent must infer which reporting tool to pick.

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

All Phare toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources