Skip to main content
Glama

Read one alerting monitor's query and triggers

malcolm_alerting_monitor_detail
Read-only

Retrieve an alerting monitor by ID to inspect its full OpenSearch query and firing conditions, checking if silence is meaningful or the monitor cannot fire.

Instructions

Read one alerting monitor in full: the query it runs and the conditions that fire it.

    Use this to decide whether a monitor's SILENCE means anything.
    malcolm_alerting_monitors says a monitor exists and whether it is
    enabled, but cannot show the query or the trigger condition, so it
    cannot separate a monitor that watches the right traffic from one whose
    condition no traffic can satisfy — Malcolm's shipped loopback monitor
    fires on `ctx.results[0].hits.total.value > 999999999`.
    Take the id from malcolm_alerting_monitors; for the alerts a monitor has
    raised use malcolm_alerting_alerts with monitor_id.

    Field names are in the output schema; what it cannot show is what sits
    inside `inputs` and `triggers` — each search input's whole OpenSearch
    query as the monitor stores it, mustache placeholders such as
    {{period_end}} left intact, and each trigger's severity, firing
    condition and action names. Watch for the `note` key: it marks a monitor
    that cannot fire at all, disabled or trigger-less. Raises if no monitor
    has that id.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesThe monitor's OpenSearch document id, returned as `id` by malcolm_alerting_monitors (e.g. "ExampleOsDocId000001"). Not the monitor name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / monitor_id / description
      Previous value: -"The monitor's OpenSearch document id, returned as `id` by malcolm_alerting_monitors (e.g. \"NYUZsZ8Bao8axaN3ef1f\"). Not the monitor name."New value: +"The monitor's OpenSearch document id, returned as `id` by malcolm_alerting_monitors (e.g. \"ExampleOsDocId000001\"). Not the monitor name."
  2. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the query and trigger condition that are otherwise invisible, the meaning of the `note` key (monitor cannot fire), mustache placeholders preserved in stored queries, and the failure behavior ('Raises if no monitor has that id'). This is exactly the value-add a description should provide on top of structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then output caveats. It is on the longer side and the loopback-monitor example, while illustrative, is slightly verbose, but each sentence carries operational content rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description correctly avoids restating field names while flagging the one thing the schema cannot convey — the contents of `inputs` and `triggers`. Combined with the error behavior and the `note` semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema text already says it is the OpenSearch document id returned as `id`, not the name. The description repeats the id-source guidance ('Take the id from malcolm_alerting_monitors') but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Read one alerting monitor in full: the query it runs and the conditions that fire it.' It immediately separates itself from malcolm_alerting_monitors (existence/enabled only) and malcolm_alerting_alerts (raised alerts), naming both siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rationale ('to decide whether a monitor's SILENCE means anything'), the failure mode the sibling cannot detect, the parameter source (id from malcolm_alerting_monitors), and the alternative for alerts (malcolm_alerting_alerts with monitor_id). Nothing is left to inference.

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