check_siteCheck a site monitor now. One call every 10 seconds per destination host. One call every 10 seconds per destination host, for everyone: the button cannot hammer a site. The first state of a new site comes from here, without an alert — you are looking at it. After that, the state and the alerts come from the check that runs every minute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the site monitor, from `Monitor.id`. | |
| guest_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: a hard rate limit (one call per 10 seconds per destination host, globally shared), the fact that this call does NOT emit an alert, and that it produces the first state of a new site. This explains why the annotations mark it non-idempotent and non-read-only for what sounds like a read-style 'check'.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded, but the sentence 'One call every 10 seconds per destination host' is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste. The remaining sentences earn their place but the repetition weakens the structure.
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?
Covers the trigger semantics, rate limit, and alert behavior well for a 2-param tool with no output schema. However, it leaves the required guest_token (auth) unexplained despite low schema coverage, which is a gap an agent must resolve elsewhere.
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 coverage is only 50%, and guest_token has no schema description. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required guest_token and adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'id' entry.
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 and resource with an on-demand qualifier: 'Check a site monitor now.' It is clearly distinguishable from create_site/list_sites/delete_endpoint siblings, though it never names any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool is for forcing an immediate check, and the description contrasts it with the automatic minute-interval check. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to an alternative tool.
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.