Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Get a monitor's daily uptime

get_uptime_daily
Read-onlyIdempotent

Report a monitor's uptime for each UTC day, oldest first, to identify the day an outage or degradation began.

Instructions

Report one monitor's uptime for each UTC day, oldest first and ending today, to find the day an outage or degradation began. Each day has date, uptime_percentage, total_checks, up_checks, down_checks, degraded_checks and maintenance_checks; a degraded check counts as up, and a day with no checks outside maintenance has a null uptime_percentage, not 100. For 24h, 7d and 30d totals use get_uptime_summary. Returns monitor_id and days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days to return, 1 to 365; default 30. Capped at the plan's limits.history_retention_days (get_plan_usage), so fewer days can come back.
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
daysYes
monitor_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / days / description
      Added value: +"How many days to return, 1 to 365; default 30. Capped at the plan's limits.history_retention_days (get_plan_usage), so fewer days can come back."
    • 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."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "days": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "date": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "degraded_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "down_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "maintenance_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "total_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "up_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "uptime_percentage": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "date",
+          "uptime_percentage",
+          "total_checks",
+          "up_checks",
+          "down_checks"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "monitor_id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "monitor_id",
+    "days"
+  ],
+  "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 already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavioral semantics beyond them: degraded checks count as up, days with only maintenance checks yield null uptime_percentage rather than 100, ordering is oldest-first, and results are capped at the plan's history retention. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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: purpose and ordering first, then field semantics and the null-edge case, then the sibling hand-off. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 2-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, edge cases, retention behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by reinforcing the retention cap and noting that fewer days than requested can be returned, clarifying the effective behavior of 'days'.

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 ('Report one monitor's uptime for each UTC day') with explicit scope (oldest first, ending today). It distinguishes itself from get_uptime_summary by naming that sibling as the alternative for aggregate totals.

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 a concrete use case ('to find the day an outage or degradation began') and explicitly routes the agent to get_uptime_summary for 24h/7d/30d totals. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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