Skip to main content
Glama

healthchecksio

by io.usefulapi

Update check

healthchecksio_update_check
Destructive

UPDATES an existing check by UUID — this MODIFIES live monitoring config. Send only the fields you want to change (timeout and schedule remain mutually exclusive). Healthchecks: POST /checks/{uuid}. Returns the updated check.

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".
uuidYesThe check's UUID to update.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that this modifies live monitoring config, supports partial updates, and maintains mutual exclusivity between timeout and schedule. It also states the HTTP endpoint and confirms the return value, giving the agent a clear behavioral picture.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the purpose, the critical usage rule, and the endpoint/return contract are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: partial updates, destructive live-config modification, mutual exclusivity, and the returned updated check. The schema handles parameter-level detail, so nothing critical is missing for invoking this tool correctly.

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 individual parameters are already documented. The description adds the key cross-cutting semantic that only fields the caller wants to change should be sent, which is not encoded in the schema itself and meaningfully guides parameter usage.

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 precise verb and resource ('UPDATES an existing check by UUID') and immediately distinguishes itself from create/delete tools. The phrase 'MODIFIES live monitoring config' reinforces the update semantics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear usage context: update an existing check by UUID, send only fields to change, and keep timeout/schedule mutually exclusive. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_check or create_check, but the UUID-targeted update phrasing makes the intended use obvious.

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