SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List checks

list_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse and filter SolidPing organization monitoring checks by name, labels, or check group; returns paginated results with cursor support.

Instructions

List monitoring checks for the organization, optionally filtered by name/slug substring, labels, or check group. Returns {data, pagination}; pass pagination.cursor back as cursor for the next page. Use this for browsing or filtering a fleet of checks. To investigate a single check's current health, use diagnose_check instead; if you already know its UID or slug, get_check is more direct. Read-only: works with mcp:read tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Case-insensitive substring match on check name or slug, e.g. "api".
`with`	No	Comma-separated extra fields: lastResult — most recent result for each check lastStatusChange — when each check last changed status Example: "lastResult,lastStatusChange".
`limit`	No	Max results (1-100, default 20).
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor returned by a previous response. Omit on the first page.
`labels`	No	Label filter as a JSON object. Returns checks that have ALL of the given labels with matching values (AND semantics). Example: {"env": "production", "team": "api"}.
`checkGroupUid`	No	Filter to checks in this group (UID or slug), e.g. "core-services".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Checks on this page.
`pagination`	No	Cursor pagination state for the filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Checks on this page.",
+      "items": {
+        "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"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "pagination": {
+      "description": "Cursor pagination state for the filter.",
+      "properties": {
+        "cursor": {
+          "description": "Opaque cursor for the next page; absent on the last page.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "limit": {
+          "description": "Page size used for this response.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "description": "Total checks matching the filter.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating it works with mcp:read tokens and explaining pagination via pagination.cursor. It does not cover rate limits or edge cases, but with annotations and an output schema, the added detail is solid.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return/pagination, then usage guidance and alternatives. Four sentences with no wasted words, each earning 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?

Given six optional parameters, an existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers filtering, pagination, sibling alternatives, and token scope; return structure is left to the output schema.

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 all six parameters are already well documented. The description only summarizes filter categories ('name/slug substring, labels, or check group') and pagination, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('List monitoring checks'), scope ('for the organization'), and optional filters. Distinguishes from siblings by naming diagnose_check and get_check, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 says 'Use this for browsing or filtering a fleet of checks' and routes to diagnose_check for a single check's health or get_check when the UID/slug is known. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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