Retrieve all heartbeat and cron monitors with current status, last ping time, expected period, and grace period; optionally filter by agent UUID or local.
List all heartbeat/cron monitors with their current status, last ping time, expected period, and grace period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Filter by agent UUID, or 'local' for heartbeats received 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 declares the safety profile, and the description adds value by naming the exact return contents (current status, last ping time, expected/grace period). No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed, but the return-field disclosure is meaningful given there is no output schema.
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?
A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant text. It could integrate a filtering hint but is well-sized.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covering the returned fields plus the annotation covering safety makes it essentially complete. Minor gap is the absence of any usage/alternative context.
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 coverage is 100% for the single agent_id parameter, including the 'local' enum-like value, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('heartbeat/cron monitors') and enumerates the fields returned (status, last ping, period, grace). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_alerts or list_agents, though it doesn't explicitly name a competing tool.
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 description offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_trigger, pause_monitor) or any prerequisites. It also doesn't mention the agent_id filtering option, leaving usage context entirely to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.