Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Get uptime for a monitor

get_uptime_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a monitor's uptime percentage, average response time, and incident count over 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days to assess reliability.

Instructions

Report one monitor's uptime percentage, average response time and incident count over the last 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days at once, to answer how reliable it has been. For a day-by-day series use get_uptime_daily; for response time per region use get_response_time_by_region; for the individual failures use list_check_results. Returns monitor_id and windows keyed 24h, 7d and 30d, each with uptime_percentage (DEGRADED checks count as up; null when there were no checks), total_checks, up_checks, down_checks, degraded_checks, incident_count and avg_response_time_ms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
windowsYes
monitor_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "monitor_id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "windows": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "properties": {
+          "avg_response_time_ms": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "integer"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "degraded_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "down_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "incident_count": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "total_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "up_checks": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "uptime_percentage": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "uptime_percentage",
+          "total_checks",
+          "up_checks",
+          "down_checks",
+          "incident_count",
+          "avg_response_time_ms"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "monitor_id",
+    "windows"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral semantics beyond them: DEGRADED checks count as up, uptime_percentage is null when there were no checks, and incident_count/avg_response_time_ms are surfaced. It omits anything about permissions or rate limits, but the key interpretive caveats are disclosed.

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 is front-loaded, followed by routing and then the return shape; every sentence carries information. The long enumeration of return fields is somewhat heavy given an output schema already exists, which is the only reason this isn't a 5.

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 full annotations and an output schema present, the description is more than adequate; it even spells out the window keys and metric names. The return-value detail is partly redundant with the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents monitor_id fully, including the uuid format and the 404 behavior. The description adds no further parameter 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 (uptime percentage, average response time, incident count for one monitor) and scopes it precisely to three fixed windows (24h, 7d, 30d). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_uptime_daily and get_response_time_by_region 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For a day-by-day series use get_uptime_daily; for response time per region use get_response_time_by_region; for the individual failures use list_check_results.' This is textbook when-to-use/when-not 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools