Retrieve all monitored HTTP/TCP endpoints with up/down status, response time, and uptime percentage, optionally filtered by agent UUID or local checks.
List all monitored HTTP/TCP endpoints with their current status (up/down), response time, and uptime percentage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Filter by agent UUID, or 'local' for endpoints checked directly by the server. Omit to return all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload contents (status, response time, uptime percentage), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or cost of listing every endpoint in large environments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields. No filler, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly complete. The enumerated return fields compensate for the absence of an output schema; only pagination/ordering behavior is left unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented there, including the 'local' sentinel and the omit-for-all behavior. The description says 'all' endpoints and never acknowledges the filter, so it adds nothing over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (monitored HTTP/TCP endpoints) and even names the return fields (status up/down, response time, uptime percentage). It implicitly contrasts with get_endpoint_history (current snapshot vs history) but never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'current' implies a point-in-time snapshot, which is a soft signal that historical data belongs to get_endpoint_history, but no alternative or when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable but never spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.