Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Get a monitor's response time by region

get_response_time_by_region
Read-onlyIdempotent

Chart a monitor's average response time by region over time to pinpoint where it is slow and since when.

Instructions

Chart one monitor's average response time over time, one series per region, to see where it is slow and since when. Returns monitor_id, window, bucket_seconds and regions, each with region, display_name and points (oldest first, the same buckets in every series: bucket_start, avg_response_time_ms, null when the bucket had no successful check, and sample_count). Every configured region has a series, even an empty one, followed by removed regions that still had checks; points start at the window's start or at the monitor's creation. For uptime use get_uptime_summary; for single checks use list_check_results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowNo24h (the default; up to 24 hourly buckets), 7d (up to 28 six-hourly buckets) or 30d (up to 30 daily buckets).
monitor_idYesThe monitor's uuid from list_monitors. An id that is not a monitor of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowYes
regionsYes
monitor_idYes
bucket_secondsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / monitor_id / description
      Added value: +"The monitor's uuid from list_monitors. An id that is not a monitor of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404."
    • addedInput schema / properties / window / description
      Added value: +"24h (the default; up to 24 hourly buckets), 7d (up to 28 six-hourly buckets) or 30d (up to 30 daily buckets)."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bucket_seconds": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "monitor_id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "regions": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "display_name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "points": {
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "avg_response_time_ms": {
+                  "anyOf": [
+                    {
+                      "type": "integer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                      "type": "null"
+                    }
+                  ]
+                },
+                "bucket_start": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "sample_count": {
+                  "type": "integer"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "bucket_start",
+                "sample_count"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "region": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "region",
+          "display_name",
+          "points"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "window": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "monitor_id",
+    "window",
+    "bucket_seconds",
+    "regions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations, including the exact return payload shape, bucket alignment across regions, null handling for empty buckets, sample_count, inclusion of empty configured regions, and treatment of removed regions with checks. Annotations already establish read-only safety, but the description goes further by explaining output semantics and data ordering.

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?

The description is front-loaded with its purpose, then moves efficiently through return structure and alternative tools. Despite its length, every sentence carries useful information about output shape, ordering, region inclusion, or routing.

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 an output schema present, the description need not define return values, but it still provides rich return semantics, region inclusion rules, bucket alignment, and alternative-tool guidance. Given the annotations, complete schema coverage, and output schema, it is fully complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the window enum and monitor_id UUID semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: chart one monitor's average response time over time, one series per region. It also names the sibling alternatives get_uptime_summary and list_check_results, so an agent can distinguish this tool from related uptime and check-listing tools.

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?

The final sentence gives explicit routing guidance: use get_uptime_summary for uptime and list_check_results for single checks. The opening sentence also clarifies the intended analytical use case of seeing where and since when a monitor is slow by region.

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