Skip to main content
Glama

healthchecksio

by io.usefulapi

Create check

healthchecksio_create_check
Destructive

CREATES a new check — this MODIFIES live monitoring config. Provide a timeout (simple period-based check) OR a schedule + tz (cron-based check); the two are mutually exclusive. Use unique to avoid creating duplicates. Assign notifications via channels. Healthchecks: POST /checks/. Returns the created check (201) or the existing match (200).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tzNoServer's timezone for the cron `schedule`, e.g. "Europe/Riga".
descNoFree-form description of the check.
nameNoHuman-readable name for the check.
slugNoURL slug (used for slug-based ping URLs).
tagsNoSpace-separated list of tags, e.g. "prod db backups".
graceNoGrace time in seconds after the deadline before the check goes down.
uniqueNoDedupe fields — if a check already matches on these (e.g. ["name"]), it is returned instead of created.
methodsNoAllowed ping HTTP methods: "" (any) or "POST" (POST-only).
timeoutNoExpected period between pings, in seconds (60..31536000). Mutually exclusive with `schedule`.
channelsNoIntegrations to assign: "*" for all, or a comma-separated list of integration ids.
scheduleNoCron expression for the expected ping schedule (e.g. "15 5 * * *"). Mutually exclusive with `timeout`; requires `tz`.
manual_resumeNoIf true, a paused check does not auto-resume on the next ping (resume manually).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it modifies live monitoring config, explains the two mutually exclusive check modes, and discloses that a duplicate match returns 200 while creation returns 201. It also references the exact POST endpoint, giving the agent a fuller picture of side effects and outcomes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important fact—that this mutates live config. Every sentence adds useful information: mutually exclusive modes, dedupe behavior, channel assignment, endpoint, and return statuses. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers endpoint, mutation warning, parameter mode selection, deduplication, notifications, and return status codes. With no output schema, it appropriately discloses what the caller will receive. It is complete for a create operation with 12 fully documented schema parameters.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters semantically: timeout for period-based checks, schedule+tz for cron-based checks, unique for dedupe, and channels for notifications. This helps the agent reason about parameter relationships beyond individual schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the specific verb and resource: CREATES a new check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it mutates live monitoring config, separating it from list/get/update/delete operations.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool—creating a new check—and gives operational guidance on the mutually exclusive timeout vs schedule+tz modes, using unique for deduplication, and assigning channels. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All healthchecksio toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: check CRUD, pause/resume, pings, flips, badges, and integrations. The only potentially related pair, list_pings and get_ping_body, is clearly separated by metadata vs raw body.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern, with list_* for collections and get_/create_/update_/delete_/pause_/resume_ for single-resource actions. There are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent verb choices.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal range for this domain, and each tool covers a distinct, necessary operation for managing and inspecting Healthchecks monitoring. The set feels complete without being bloated.

Completeness4/5

The check lifecycle is fully covered with create, get, update, delete, pause, and resume, plus history and supporting data like pings, flips, badges, and integrations. The main minor gap is that there is no tool to send a ping or manually trigger a check success/failure, so end-to-end ping verification must happen out-of-band.

Resources