Skip to main content
Glama
fclairamb

SolidPing

Official
by fclairamb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

List check groups

list_check_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all check groups for your organization, bundling related checks for shared incident handling and dashboards. Each entry has slug, status, and check count.

Instructions

List all check groups for the organization. Check groups bundle related checks together for shared incident handling and dashboard organization, and each entry carries its slug, rolled-up status and check count. Returns {data: [...]}. Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoCheck groups on this page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Check groups on this page.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "checkCount": {
+            "description": "Number of member checks.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "description": "RFC3339 creation timestamp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "description": "Free-text description, when set.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "escalationPolicyUid": {
+            "description": "Group-level escalation policy member checks inherit, when set.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "memberStatusCounts": {
+            "description": "Per-status count of enabled member checks, e.g. {\"up\": 3, \"down\": 1}.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Human-readable name.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "slug": {
+            "description": "URL-friendly slug.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "sortOrder": {
+            "description": "Display order among the org's groups.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Rollup of enabled member checks' statuses, recomputed on every read.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "uid": {
+            "description": "Check group UID.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updatedAt": {
+            "description": "RFC3339 last-update timestamp.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.32.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth scope ("works with mcp:read tokens") and enumerating the per-entry fields (slug, rolled-up status, check count), giving useful behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by definitional and auth context. No redundant or wasted text.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and zero params, the description leaves nothing an agent needs missing. It even names the return shape, which is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-input, organization-scoped call.

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+resource ("List all check groups") and further defines what a check group is, distinguishing it from the sibling list_checks/list_check_types. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope phrase "for the organization," but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and the strong sibling alternatives (list_checks, list_check_types) are never mentioned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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