updown_get_checkFetch a single check by token, optionally with the last hour of performance metrics and/or the detailed results of the last 5 requests. updown: GET /api/checks/:token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The check's unique token, e.g. ngg8 (from updown_list_checks). | |
| metrics | No | Include performance metrics for the last hour. | |
| results | No | Include detailed results of the last 5 requests (can be large). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that metrics and results are optional enrichments, but that detail largely duplicates the schema and it says nothing about response size, rate limits, or failure modes for an invalid token.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the core action in a single tight sentence; the trailing 'updown: GET /api/checks/:token' endpoint mapping is mildly redundant but cheap and confirmatory rather than wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a small read-only tool with full schema coverage and one required param, the description covers the action, the scoping key, and the optional enrichments. Since there is no output schema, a hint about the returned shape would be the only missing piece.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'last hour of performance metrics' and 'last 5 requests' matches the schema text for metrics/results without adding syntax or format detail beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single check) scoped to one token, which clearly distinguishes it from updown_list_checks (plural listing) and updown_get_check_metrics (metrics-only sibling). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus updown_list_checks, updown_get_check_metrics, or the other get/update siblings, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only weakly implied by 'by token'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.