Monitoring AIops

prtg_history

Read-only

Retrieve historic data points for a PRTG sensor over a configurable look-back window to analyze recent performance and diagnose issues.

Instructions

[READ] Historic data points for one PRTG sensor over the recent window.

Args: sensor_id: PRTG sensor object id (objid). hours: Look-back window in hours (default 24). target: PRTG target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sensor_id": "<sensor_id>"
    },
    "name": "prtg_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No
`target`	No
`sensor_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' label is largely redundant. The description adds that the window is bounded ('recent') and that target defaults from config, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or data resolution. Moderate value beyond annotations.

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-loaded with the purpose sentence followed by a compact args list; no filler. Slightly list-heavy but every line earns its place.

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?

For a read-only history tool with no output schema and only one required parameter, the definition covers purpose and all parameters adequately. It could mention the granularity or format of returned points, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: sensor_id is tied to the PRTG objid concept, hours is defined as a look-back window with default 24, and target is explained as a config name that can be omitted for the default. Only minor detail (e.g. accepted hours range) is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: historic data points for one PRTG sensor over a recent window, with a '[READ]' marker. An agent can distinguish this from prtg_sensor_details (current state) and prtg_sensors (listing), though the differentiation is implied rather than named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'recent window' and 'one PRTG sensor' implies when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. prtg_sensor_details vs prtg_history). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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