Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUptime

OpenUptime

by becoolme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_monitor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a monitor's configuration, recent check history, and uptime statistics by UUID to investigate its health and diagnose issues.

Instructions

Read one monitor's configuration, recent check history and uptime statistics by its UUID from list_monitors. Use this to investigate a specific monitor; list_monitors is the summary view and run_check performs a new check. Returns the monitor plus history; secret HTTP headers are masked for callers without management access.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesResource UUID returned by the matching list tool; not its name, incident number or status-page slug.
projectNoProject id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace.
workspaceNoWorkspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Resource id (uuid)"New value: +"Resource UUID returned by the matching list tool; not its name, incident number or status-page slug."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: what comes back (monitor plus history) and that secret HTTP headers are masked for callers lacking management access. It stops short of describing history depth, pagination or limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight clauses: what it returns, when to use it versus siblings, and a redaction caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state it returns the monitor plus check history and uptime, plus the header-masking caveat. It omits how much history is returned or whether it is paginated/windowed, which is a minor but real gap for an investigative read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including that id is a UUID not a name/slug and how project/workspace defaults apply. The description's 'by its UUID from list_monitors' reinforces the id source but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one monitor's configuration, recent check history and uptime statistics') plus the identifier source ('UUID from list_monitors'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling summary view and with run_check, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives a clear when-to-use ('investigate a specific monitor') and names two alternatives with their roles: list_monitors is the summary view, run_check performs a new check. Nothing is left to inference about tool selection.

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