Retrieve synthetic check metrics for a website, including availability and response times, by specifying website ID and optional time range.
Get synthetic check data for a website
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_time | No | End time in epoch seconds (optional) | |
| start_time | No | Start time in epoch seconds (optional) | |
| website_id | Yes | Website ID | |
| checkpoint_id | No | Checkpoint ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the 'synthetic' qualifier but no behavioral context such as pagination, data format, or filtering constraints. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded for a simple read operation, though it may be too terse for the ambiguity of 'synthetic check data'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. The term 'synthetic check data' is unclear, and the agent lacks context about the return value or how to interpret results. Annotations cover safety but not semantic meaning, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics or relationships, so it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb 'get' and resource 'website' with a qualifier 'synthetic check data', distinguishing it from siblings like get_website that fetch website details. However, 'synthetic check data' is ambiguous and doesn't precisely define the payload, which could confuse an agent about the data type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 get_website or get_graph_data. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.