Retrieve synthetic monitors with current status, success rate, type, check period, and location health to assess monitoring coverage and identify failing checks or coverage gaps.
List all synthetic monitors with their current status, success rate, monitor type (simple, scripted browser, API test, etc.), check period, and location health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Account ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns a list of monitors with several status and configuration fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential pagination behavior, rate limits, account scoping beyond the optional account_id, or any caveats about 'all' monitors.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then efficiently lists the notable output fields. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a strong picture of the returned data. The main gaps are lack of explicit mention of pagination, default account behavior, and a precise definition of 'location health,' but these are minor for this simple tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single account_id parameter already described as optional. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how account_id affects the listing, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('synthetic monitors'), and enumerates the key returned attributes (status, success rate, monitor type, check period, location health). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_synthetic_results, which focuses on test results rather than monitor listings.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_synthetic_results or entity_search. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'List' rather than stated directly, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.