SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get check

get_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single uptime check's metadata by UID or slug, optionally including last result or status change. Read-only; use for quick lookup, not full triage.

Instructions

Get a single check's metadata by UID or slug; ask for extras with with=lastResult,lastStatusChange. For a full triage briefing (current status + recent results + active incidents), prefer diagnose_check; to search by name or label, use list_checks. Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`with`	No	Comma-separated extra fields: lastResult — most recent result lastStatusChange — when status last changed Example: "lastResult,lastStatusChange".
`identifier`	Yes	Check UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "api-prod" or "63d49e55-97e3-4e8c-b7ab-c862de7a43f3".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	Yes	Check UID.
`name`	No	Human-readable name.
`slug`	No	URL-friendly slug.
`type`	No	Check type, e.g. "http".
`config`	No	Check-specific configuration for the type.
`labels`	No	Key-value labels.
`period`	No	Check interval as HH:MM:SS.
`status`	No	Synthesized status: up, down, validating, created or degraded.
`enabled`	No	Whether the check runs.
`regions`	No	Regions the check runs from.
`createdAt`	No	RFC3339 creation timestamp.
`placement`	No	"pinned" or "auto".
`description`	No	Free-text description.
`lastResultAt`	No	RFC3339 timestamp of the newest real result.
`checkGroupUid`	No	Check group UID, when the check belongs to a group.
`statusChangedAt`	No	RFC3339 timestamp of the last status change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checkGroupUid": {
+      "description": "Check group UID, when the check belongs to a group.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "config": {
+      "description": "Check-specific configuration for the type.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "createdAt": {
+      "description": "RFC3339 creation timestamp.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "Free-text description.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "description": "Whether the check runs.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "labels": {
+      "description": "Key-value labels.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "lastResultAt": {
+      "description": "RFC3339 timestamp of the newest real result.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Human-readable name.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "period": {
+      "description": "Check interval as HH:MM:SS.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "placement": {
+      "description": "\"pinned\" or \"auto\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "regions": {
+      "description": "Regions the check runs from.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "description": "URL-friendly slug.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Synthesized status: up, down, validating, created or degraded.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "statusChangedAt": {
+      "description": "RFC3339 timestamp of the last status change.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Check type, e.g. \"http\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uid": {
+      "description": "Check UID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "uid"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.32.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them. It adds value annotations don't carry: the tool 'works with mcp:read tokens', which tells the agent about auth scope — useful for a read-only agent. It does not, however, describe pagination, error cases, or what 'metadata' excludes.

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 sentences, zero waste: the core operation and lookup key come first, then the extras hint, then the alternatives routing. Each clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema (so return shape need not be explained), the description covers purpose, routing, and auth scope completely. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with format examples in the schema. The description's mention of `with=lastResult,lastStatusChange` restates what the schema property description already spells out, adding no new syntax or defaulting semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get a single check's metadata') plus the lookup key ('by UID or slug'), which immediately separates it from list_checks and diagnose_check. An agent can identify this as the single-object retrieval tool without opening any 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?

Explicitly names two alternatives and the conditions that select them: diagnose_check for a full triage briefing, list_checks for search by name or label. No inference is required to route between the three.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.