Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hostproof-mcp

hostproof-mcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_sprinto_monitors

List Sprinto workspace monitors with IDs, names, and types so you can select the correct target for an evidence upload.

Instructions

List monitors in the Sprinto workspace (pk, name, monitorType) to choose an upload target.

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": "list_sprinto_monitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a simple enumeration (no parameters, no mutation implied), but says nothing about permissions required, whether the result is paginated or scoped to the caller's workspace, or how large the list can be. For a zero-parameter read this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action, scope, returned fields, and purpose, front-loaded with the verb. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs trimming.

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 no-argument read with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what the tool returns and why the agent would call it. Only minor operational details (pagination, workspace scoping, permissions) are absent, and those are low-risk here.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully identifies the fields present in the response (pk, name, monitorType), which helps the agent use the result even though an output schema already exists.

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 and resource ('List monitors in the Sprinto workspace') and enumerates the fields returned (pk, name, monitorType), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The trailing purpose clause 'to choose an upload target' hints at its role versus upload_evidence, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'to choose an upload target' gives a clear, actionable context for when to call it — as a lookup step before upload_evidence. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools