Retrieve full details for one website monitor and its last 20 check results by monitor ID. Use for status review, health history, and diagnostics.
Get the full details of one monitor and its last 20 check results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully bounds the return set (last 20 check results), which is real behavioral context a schema cannot convey, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID is missing, or whether results are paginated.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Every clause (single monitor, last 20 results) earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what is fetched and how much result history is returned. Missing only auth/error semantics, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'id' as the Monitor ID. The description adds nothing beyond implying that the ID selects a single monitor, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 (Get) and resource (one monitor) plus the notable scope of the return set (last 20 check results). 'One monitor' implicitly separates it from list_monitors, but no sibling is named 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 is implied rather than stated: the single-monitor framing suggests calling it when you already have a monitor ID, versus list_monitors for enumeration. No when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.