Skip to main content
Glama
monitoringartist

LogicMonitor MCP Server

list_website_checkpoints

Read-only

List available checkpoint locations for website monitoring, including geographic regions and types (external/internal), to use when creating website monitors.

Instructions

List available checkpoint locations for website monitoring in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.

Returns: Array of checkpoint locations with: id, name, geographic region, status, type (internal/external).

What are checkpoints: Global testing locations from which LogicMonitor runs synthetic website checks. Think "test my website from New York, London, Tokyo" - checkpoints are those global vantage points.

When to use:

  • Check available checkpoint locations before creating website monitors

  • Verify geographic coverage for multi-region testing

  • Select appropriate locations for SLA monitoring

  • Plan website monitoring strategy

Checkpoint types:

  • External (Cloud): LogicMonitor-managed locations around the world (US-East, EU-West, Asia-Pacific, etc.)

  • Internal (Collector-based): Tests run from your own collectors (test internal apps, VPNs, private networks)

Common checkpoint locations:

  • North America: US-East, US-West, US-Central, Canada

  • Europe: EU-West (Ireland), EU-Central (Frankfurt), UK

  • Asia-Pacific: Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo

  • South America: São Paulo

Use cases:

  • Global SLA monitoring: Test from regions where customers are located

  • CDN verification: Ensure content delivery works worldwide

  • Regional compliance: Monitor from specific geographic locations

  • Multi-region performance: Compare response times across locations

  • Failover testing: Verify DR sites accessible from all regions

Best practices:

  • Select checkpoints near your user base

  • Use multiple checkpoints for critical services (avoid false positives from single location issues)

  • Mix internal and external checkpoints for comprehensive coverage

  • Consider timezone differences for result interpretation

Workflow: Use this tool to discover available locations, then use those checkpoint IDs when creating website monitors via "create_website".

Related tools: "list_websites" (existing monitors), "create_website" (configure checkpoints), "get_website" (verify checkpoint configuration).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about checkpoint types (internal/external), return fields, and use cases without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with headings but verbose, containing extensive background on checkpoints, use cases, and best practices that could be condensed for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, workflow, and return details.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description for 'fields'.

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?

Clearly states 'List available checkpoint locations for website monitoring' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_websites' via the 'Related tools' section.

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?

Explicit 'When to use:' section with four bullet points and a 'Workflow' subsection that describes when to use before creating monitors. Mentions alternative tools like 'list_websites' and 'create_website', but does not explicitly state when NOT to use.

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