Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Resume many monitors

bulk_resume_monitors
Idempotent

Resume up to 100 paused monitors in one all-or-nothing call, setting each back to PENDING so the next tick checks them.

Instructions

Resume up to 100 paused monitors in one call, all or nothing; each goes back to PENDING and is checked on the next tick. For one monitor use resume_monitor; to run a check right away on a monitor that is already running, use check_now. Requires a key with the write scope. Resuming more monitors than the plan's active limit allows is a 403 and nothing changes (see get_plan_usage). A monitor already running is left as it is. Returns monitors: the list_monitors rows after the change, in request order. Example: {"monitor_ids": ["", ""]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idsYes1 to 100 distinct monitor uuids from list_monitors. A repeated id is a 422; an id that is not a monitor of this organization is a 404 naming it, and then nothing changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitorsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / monitor_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Monitors to act on. Every id must belong to the active organization."New value: +"1 to 100 distinct monitor uuids from list_monitors. A repeated id is a 422; an id that is not a monitor of this organization is a 404 naming it, and then nothing changes."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "monitors": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "format": "uuid",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "interval_seconds": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "is_active": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "last_checked_at": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "ssl_expires_at": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Known values: PENDING, UP, DEGRADED, DOWN, PAUSED.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tags": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "target": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Known values: HTTP, PING, SSL, TCP, DNS.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "type",
+          "target",
+          "status",
+          "is_active",
+          "interval_seconds",
+          "ssl_expires_at",
+          "last_checked_at"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "monitors"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: transactionality ('all or nothing'), resulting state (PENDING, checked next tick), the 403 plan-limit behavior with no partial change, and the no-op on already-running monitors. No contradiction with idempotentHint or destructiveHint.

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 the batch semantics, then routing, then auth/preconditions, then return shape, then example. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter bulk mutation, the description covers scope, alternatives, permissions, failure modes, no-op behavior, and return format — everything an agent needs. An output schema exists, and the description's brief return note is complementary rather than redundant.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the 1-100 distinct-uuid constraint plus 422/404 handling, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete invocation example and states the return order is the request order, giving slightly more than the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb (resume) plus resource (monitors), with scope stated (up to 100 paused monitors, all-or-nothing). It explicitly distinguishes itself from resume_monitor and check_now, so an agent can route without opening sibling 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?

Names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: resume_monitor for a single monitor, check_now for an immediate check on an already-running monitor. Also states the auth prerequisite (write scope) and the plan-limit failure path with a pointer to get_plan_usage.

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