Skip to main content
Glama
monitoringartist

LogicMonitor MCP Server

list_recipients

Read-only

Retrieve all alert recipients in LogicMonitor, including email, SMS, and webhook endpoints. Use to audit notification targets and get IDs for escalation chain configuration.

Instructions

List all alert recipients (individual notification targets) in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.

Returns: Array of recipients with: id, type (email/SMS/webhook), contact information, method (email address, phone number, webhook URL), name, status.

What are recipients: Individual notification endpoints used in escalation chains. Can be: email addresses, SMS/phone numbers, webhook URLs, or integration endpoints (Slack, PagerDuty, etc.).

When to use:

  • Find recipient IDs for escalation chain configuration

  • Audit who can receive alerts

  • Verify contact information is current

  • Review notification endpoints before updating escalation chains

Recipient types explained:

  • Email: Email address (e.g., oncall@company.com, john.doe@company.com)

  • SMS: Mobile phone number (e.g., +1-555-123-4567)

  • Voice: Phone number for voice calls

  • Arbitrary: Custom webhooks for external integrations

Common use cases:

  • "Who can receive critical production alerts?" → List recipients used in escalation chains

  • "Update on-call phone number" → Find recipient by name, update contact info

  • "Add new team member to alerts" → Create recipient, add to escalation chain

  • "Remove former employee" → Find and delete recipient

Recipients vs Recipient Groups:

  • Recipients: Individual targets (one email, one phone)

  • Recipient Groups: Collections of recipients (notify entire team at once)

Workflow: Use this tool to find available recipients, then use in "create_escalation_chain" or "update_escalation_chain" to set up notifications.

Important: A negative "total" value in the response indicates incomplete results. Use pagination (size/offset parameters) or set autoPaginate: true to retrieve all items.

Related tools: "get_recipient" (details), "list_recipient_groups" (group management), "list_escalation_chains" (see who gets notified).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoNumber of results per page (default: 50, max: 1000).
offsetNoStarting offset for pagination (default: 0). Use this to skip a specific number of results.
autoPaginateNoAutomatically fetch all pages (default: false). When true, fetches all results across multiple pages. When false, returns only the requested page. Use false for large result sets to avoid long response times.
filterNoFilter expression using LogicMonitor query syntax. Examples: name:*prod*, displayName~*server*, id>100, hostStatus:normal. Available operators: : (equals), ~ (includes), !: (not equals), !~ (not includes), >: (greater than or equals), <: (less than or equals), > (greater than), < (less than). Multiple conditions: Use comma (,) for AND, use || for OR. Do NOT use &&.
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.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. The description goes beyond by detailing the return format (array with specific fields), noting that a negative total indicates incomplete results, and explaining pagination behavior. No contradiction with 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 clear sections but is somewhat verbose. Some information (e.g., recipient types) is repeated in two places. It front-loads the core purpose and uses bullet points, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

The description is comprehensive: covers return format, use cases, workflows, related tools, and potential pitfalls (negative total). It explains pagination and filtering hints. Given no output schema, it fully compensates with detailed return array description.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new information about parameters (mainly the pagination note about negative total, which is more behavioral than parameter-specific). The schema already adequately explains each parameter, so the description provides marginal added value.

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 'List all alert recipients' and explains what recipients are, distinguishing them from associated concepts like recipient groups. It uses specific verb (list) and resource (alert recipients), and differentiates from sibling tools such as get_recipient, list_recipient_groups, and list_escalation_chains.

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?

The description explicitly enumerates when to use the tool (find IDs, audit, verify, review) and provides a workflow section showing how it fits with create/update escalation chains. It contrasts recipients vs. recipient groups to guide tool selection.

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