fettle-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get a heartbeat monitor

get_heartbeat

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one heartbeat to check a job's state, last run duration, and next due time so you can confirm whether it ran and when it will be reported late.

Instructions

Read one heartbeat in full, including how long its last run took. It has name, state, period_seconds, grace_seconds, ping_url, last_ping_at, last_success_at, last_start_at, last_duration_ms (how long the last run took, from its /start to its success ping), overdue_at (when it will be reported late), notification_cooldown_seconds, is_active, channel_ids and tags. Use it to answer whether a job ran, how long it took and when it is next due. To find a heartbeat use list_heartbeats; to change it use update_heartbeat; probed monitors are get_monitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`heartbeat_id`	Yes	The heartbeat's uuid from list_heartbeats. An id that is not a heartbeat of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`state`	Yes	Known values: PENDING, UP, DOWN, PAUSED.
`ping_url`	Yes
`is_active`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`overdue_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes
`channel_ids`	No
`last_ping_at`	Yes
`grace_seconds`	Yes
`last_start_at`	Yes
`period_seconds`	Yes
`last_success_at`	Yes
`last_duration_ms`	Yes
`notification_cooldown_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / heartbeat_id / description

Added value: +"The heartbeat's uuid from list_heartbeats. An id that is not a heartbeat of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "channel_ids": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "grace_seconds": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "is_active": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "last_duration_ms": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "last_ping_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "last_start_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "last_success_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notification_cooldown_seconds": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "overdue_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "period_seconds": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "ping_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "Known values: PENDING, UP, DOWN, PAUSED.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tags": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "name",
+    "state",
+    "period_seconds",
+    "grace_seconds",
+    "ping_url",
+    "last_ping_at",
+    "last_success_at",
+    "last_start_at",
+    "last_duration_ms",
+    "overdue_at",
+    "notification_cooldown_seconds",
+    "is_active",
+    "created_at",
+    "updated_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.5.4Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful semantic context on returned fields such as last_duration_ms being measured from /start to success ping and overdue_at meaning the late-report time. It stops short of discussing pagination or error behavior beyond the schema's 404 note, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first and last sentences, which is good structure. However, the long enumeration of returned fields is partly redundant given an output schema exists, so it is not maximally economical.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and field interpretation adequately. The field list slightly duplicates the output schema rather than adding new information, leaving a minor gap in efficiency rather than completeness.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting that heartbeat_id comes from list_heartbeats and that foreign/deleted ids yield 404. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read one heartbeat in full') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_monitor ('probed monitors are get_monitor'), so an agent can separate this from the closest sibling without opening either 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?

Gives the use case ('answer whether a job ran, how long it took and when it is next due') plus explicit alternatives for the adjacent tasks: list_heartbeats to find one, update_heartbeat to change it, get_monitor for probed monitors. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server