Uptimy

Uptime report

get_uptime_report

Read-only

Availability against the SLA target for a period: the last 7, 30 (default) or 90 days, the last sent week, this week, a calendar month or quarter, or any range of days. Returns downtime, incidents and time to resolve, each monitor's availability worst first, the longest incidents with their causes, and planned maintenance (not counted as downtime). Uptime is time-based: downtime is the time an automatic incident was open. Below the Growth plan only last_week (the weekly report) is available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_uptime_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	range: last day (included), YYYY-MM-DD
`from`	No	range: first day, YYYY-MM-DD
`start`	No	month or quarter: its first day, YYYY-MM-DD (default: the current one)
`period`	No	last_7_days, last_30_days (default), last_90_days, last_week (the latest sent weekly report, every plan), this_week, month, quarter or range
`report`	No	report name or UUID from list_reports (default: the workspace's report covering every monitor)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	Yes
`report`	Yes
`slaMet`	Yes
`monitors`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`incidents`	Yes
`inProgress`	Yes
`methodology`	Yes
`mttrMinutes`	No
`moreMonitors`	No
`missedCheckins`	No
`downtimeMinutes`	Yes
`longestIncidents`	Yes
`slaTargetPercent`	Yes
`plannedMaintenance`	No
`availabilityPercent`	Yes
`trendVsPreviousPeriodPts`	No
`heartbeatCheckinRatePercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by defining how uptime is computed (time-based; downtime is the time an automatic incident was open), stating that planned maintenance is not counted as downtime, and disclosing the plan-level restriction on available periods. These are exactly the semantic details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then layers period options, output contents, uptime definition, and plan restriction. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; minor cost is that the period list is long inline rather than separated.

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?

With an output schema handling the return shape, the description covers everything else an agent needs: how uptime is measured, what counts as downtime, how maintenance is treated, and the plan-level availability constraint. Nothing material is left to inference for a read-only reporting tool.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by clarifying that periods are relative to preset windows (last 7/30/90 days, last sent week, this week, month, quarter, arbitrary day range) and that below the Growth plan most of them are unavailable. It adds plan-related meaning and default context not present in the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (availability against the SLA target for a period) and immediately enumerates the report's scope: downtime, incidents, time to resolve, per-monitor availability, longest incidents, and maintenance. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_reports or get_monitor_metrics, which do not produce SLA availability figures.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: which period values exist, that last_30_days is the default, and the important exclusion that below the Growth plan only last_week is available. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead for per-check data, but the plan gating and period menu give clear guidance on when the call will succeed.

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

All Uptimy 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.