Pingstack

Assign notification group to checks

assign_notification_group

Idempotent

Add one notification group to several checks at once, by a list of up to 100 check ids or by every check on a dashboard. Each check keeps its other groups, and checks that already have the group are unchanged. A dashboard with more than 100 checks returns invalid_arguments. Returns the check ids covered and how many gained the group.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "assign_notification_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Notification group id.
`check_ids`	No	Checks to alert this group, up to 100. Use this or dashboard_id.
`dashboard_id`	No	Alert this group for every check on this dashboard (dash_…). Use this or check_ids.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`added`	Yes
`check_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), it discloses the additive semantics ('Each check keeps its other groups'), the no-op behavior for checks that already have the group, the failure mode for oversized dashboards (invalid_arguments), and the return shape. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action first, then constraints, then return value. Dense but every clause carries information; only the trailing return-value sentence is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers scope, both input modes, the 100-check limit and its error behavior, idempotent merging, and return content. For a 3-parameter bulk mutation with full-schema coverage and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents the 100-item cap, the dash_ prefix, and the 'use this or check_ids' exclusivity. The description only restates 'up to 100 check ids' and the dashboard scope, adding little beyond structured fields.

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 — 'Add one notification group to several checks at once' — plus the two selection modes (check id list or dashboard). This clearly separates it from sibling mutators like update_notification_group or create_notification_group.

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?

The description makes the usage context explicit: bulk assignment either by check_ids list or by dashboard_id, with an implied either/or. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., when to use update_notification_group instead) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Pingstack tools Inspect

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

Need Help?