Skip to main content
Glama
monitoringartist

LogicMonitor MCP Server

by monitoringartist
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_recipient

Read-only

Retrieve complete details for a specific recipient by ID, including contact information, notification schedule, rate limiting, and delivery method for verification or audit.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific recipient by ID in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.

Returns: Complete recipient details: type, name, contact information (email/phone/URL), notification method, timezone, schedule restrictions, rate limiting settings.

When to use:

  • Verify contact information before escalation

  • Check notification schedule (business hours vs 24/7)

  • Review rate limiting settings

  • Audit recipient configuration

Details returned:

  • Contact info: Exact email/phone/webhook URL

  • Schedule: When notifications are sent (always vs business hours)

  • Rate limit: Max notifications per time period (prevent notification fatigue)

  • Method: Delivery mechanism (SMTP, Twilio, webhook)

Workflow: Use "list_recipients" to find recipientId, then use this tool for complete configuration.

Related tools: "list_recipients" (find recipient), "update_recipient" (modify), "list_escalation_chains" (usage).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipientIdYesThe ID of the recipient to retrieve
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to include in response. Examples: "id,displayName,hostStatus" or use "*" for all fields. Omit this parameter to receive a curated set of commonly used fields.

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds useful details about returned fields (type, name, contact info, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like permissions or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. Minor redundancy exists between 'Returns:' and 'Details returned:' sections, but overall it is efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description compensates by thoroughly listing return fields (contact info, schedule, rate limit, method). It includes workflow guidance and related tools, making it fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% since both parameters (recipientId, fields) are described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details but explains the return structure, which is acceptable for a baseline score.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific recipient by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_recipients' which finds recipients by ID first.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear use cases: verify contact info, check schedule, review rate limits, audit configuration. It also suggests a workflow using 'list_recipients' first. Though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, the context is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/monitoringartist/logicmonitor-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server