Monitoring AIops

prtg_system_status

Read-only

Retrieve system-wide PRTG sensor counters—up, down, warning, paused, and alarms—to assess monitoring health and identify affected sensors.

Instructions

[READ] System-wide PRTG sensor counters (up/down/warning/paused/alarms).

Args: target: PRTG target name from config; omit for the default.

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": "prtg_system_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's '[READ]' tag reinforces it consistently. It adds the useful 'system-wide' scope context and enumerates the counters, but says nothing about return format or freshness, so it only modestly exceeds the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a bracketed tag and one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler; it is sized appropriately for a one-parameter read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only counter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is counted and the optional target. It stops short of indicating the response shape or whether counters are point-in-time, leaving a small gap.

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 must carry the load, and it does explain the single parameter: target is a 'PRTG target name from config' and can be omitted for the default. That meaningfully clarifies origin and default behavior beyond the bare anyOf[string,null] in the schema.

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 resource and scope: 'System-wide PRTG sensor counters (up/down/warning/paused/alarms)'. An agent can tell this returns aggregate counts rather than per-sensor listings like prtg_sensors. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling it differs from.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for choosing this over prtg_sensors or prtg_alarms. The only context is the arg note about omitting target for the default.

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