Pingstack

Create notification group

create_notification_group

Idempotent

Create a notification group: a named set of recipients that checks alert when they fail or recover. Members and rosters must already belong to the account; nobody is invited or emailed. New members are alerted at all hours. Channels such as email, Slack or SMS aren't added here. A name already in use returns validation_failed and nothing is created. Returns the group with its user_ids, roster_ids and check_count.

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": {
      "group": "<group>"
    },
    "name": "create_notification_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group`	Yes	The new group. Channels such as email or Slack are added in the app.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`user_ids`	Yes
`roster_ids`	Yes
`check_count`	Yes
`delivery_configured`	Yes
`channels_awaiting_confirmation`	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?

Annotations only declare the write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent, not open-world); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the duplicate-name failure mode with no partial creation, the requirement that recipients already exist, the no-invite/no-email behavior, and the all-hours alerting default. This is exactly the contextual load an agent needs for a mutation with side effects on people's paging.

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?

Five short front-loaded sentences; the object definition comes first, then constraints, then error behavior. The only soft waste is the final sentence about returned fields, which duplicates the output schema that already 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?

For a one-parameter nested create that mutates alerting recipients, the description covers the object's meaning, preconditions, exclusions, uniqueness failure, and side-effect defaults. With an output schema present it need not enumerate return fields, so nothing an agent needs before calling 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%, so the nested group/name/user_ids/roster_ids semantics are already documented, including the 'replaces current members/rosters' behavior. The description reinforces the pre-existing-account constraint but introduces no new syntax, ordering, or format detail, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb plus resource and immediately defines the object semantically: 'a named set of recipients that checks alert when they fail or recover'. It also draws the boundary against adjacent operations by stating what this tool does not do (no invites, no channels), so an agent can distinguish it from assign/update/create_check siblings.

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?

Clear context for use: members and rosters must pre-exist on the account, nobody is invited, and channels are excluded ('aren't added here'). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for the channel case or contrasting with update_notification_group for existing groups, leaving the agent to infer that path.

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?