Skip to main content
Glama
fclairamb

SolidPing

Official
by fclairamb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

create_check

Create uptime monitoring checks for websites, APIs, and infrastructure. Use sample configs and dry-run validation to configure types, intervals, regions, and recovery settings without errors.

Instructions

Create a new monitoring check. If you don't know what config shape a given type expects, call get_check_type_samples first to fetch a working starting config, then use validate_check to dry-run before creating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoHuman-readable name, e.g. "API production". Auto-generated from URL if omitted.
slugNoURL-friendly slug (3-20 lowercase letters/digits/hyphens), e.g. "api-prod". Auto-generated if omitted.
typeNoCheck type. Allowed: http, tcp, icmp, dns, ssl, heartbeat, domain. Inferred from config if omitted.
configYesCheck-specific config. Shape depends on type. Example for http: {"url": "https://example.com", "method": "GET"}. Use get_check_type_samples to discover the shape for other types.
labelsNoKey-value labels for organization and filtering, e.g. {"env":"production","team":"api"}.
periodNoCheck interval as HH:MM:SS, e.g. "00:00:30" for 30 seconds, "00:01:00" for 1 minute (default).
enabledNoWhether the check should run. Default true.
regionsNoRegion slugs to run the check from, e.g. ["eu-west-1","us-east-1"]. Defaults to all org regions when omitted.
descriptionNoFree-text description shown in the UI.
checkGroupUidNoAssign the check to a check group (UID or slug), e.g. "core-services".
recoveryPeriodSecondsNoWall-clock seconds the check must stay UP before auto-resolving an incident. Any failure inside the window resets the recovery clock. 0 = resolve immediately. Range 0–86400. Default 120.
confirmationPeriodSecondsNoWall-clock seconds to wait after the first failure before opening an incident. 0 = open immediately on the first failure. Range 0–86400 (one day). Default 120.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.32.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new check is created and advises validation first; it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether creation can produce duplicate checks, or what side effects a successfully created and enabled check has.

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?

Two tight sentences with the main operation front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by pointing to the exact tools needed for uncertain config shapes, so there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema covers all 12 parameters well, and the description gives a useful pre-creation workflow. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return values and post-creation behavior to inference, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with nested config and side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful inline description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful sequencing guidance around config discovery and validation, but it adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new monitoring check.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many status-page, integration, and maintenance-window creation siblings in the tool list.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: if the config shape is unknown, call get_check_type_samples first and use validate_check to dry-run before creating. It does not explicitly contrast with update_check, but the create-versus-update distinction is strongly implied by the sibling tools.

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