Retrieve all uptime monitors in a project to see each monitor's status, uptime, and latency, helping you assess service health at a glance.
List the monitors of the current project with status, uptime and latency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the returned fields (status, uptime, latency), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.
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 the resource and the returned fields; nothing redundant or padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the fields returned, and the two optional scoping params are fully covered by the schema. The only gap is pagination/limits, which an agent might need for a list endpoint.
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% and both optional params are fully documented in the schema (including where the ids come from). The description adds only the 'current project' framing and no syntax or defaulting details beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (monitors) and scope (current project), with the returned fields named. It is distinguishable from get_monitor by the plural/scope wording, but it never explicitly contrasts with it or with the other list_* siblings.
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: the agent infers this is the enumeration tool while get_monitor fetches one monitor. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, and no note about which of the optional project/workspace params selects scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.