Retrieve a monitor's details, recent checks, and uptime via its UUID. Optionally filter by project or workspace.
Get one monitor with its recent checks and uptime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource id (uuid) | |
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description's added value is disclosing that the response bundles recent checks and uptime, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say how many 'recent' checks are returned or over what window, which is the main behavioral gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and payload appear immediately. It is arguably too terse for the payload claims it makes, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does tell the agent roughly what comes back (recent checks + uptime), which is the minimum needed. However, 'recent' is undefined and there is no indication of response size or whether checks are truncated, leaving the return shape only partially characterized.
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% — id, project, and workspace are each documented in the schema, including the 'omit to use default' fallbacks. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (monitor) with a clear cardinality ('one monitor'), which implicitly separates it from list_monitors. It also names the payload ('recent checks and uptime'), so an agent knows this is a detail fetch rather than a listing. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with.
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 only implied: fetch a single monitor's details when you already have its id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_monitors for browsing or get_incident for related data, and no prerequisites stated (though the schema covers project/workspace defaults).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.