@loggydev/mcp-server

create_uptime_monitor

Set up automated URL health checks by creating an uptime monitor that periodically verifies availability and response status.

Instructions

Create a new uptime monitor to check URL availability

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_uptime_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to monitor (must include protocol, e.g., https://)
`name`	Yes	Display name for the monitor
`method`	No	HTTP method to use (default: GET)
`intervalMinutes`	No	Check interval in minutes (default: 5)
`expectedStatusCode`	No	Expected HTTP status code (default: 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states creation and URL checking, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is unreachable. The behavioral detail is minimal.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, instantly communicates the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or what the created monitor does immediately. It is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'uptime monitor', and the purpose 'to check URL availability'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_heartbeat' which monitors different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_heartbeat' or 'create_status_page'. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server