Retrieves recent ping history for a monitor, including received times, ping type (success/start/fail), source IP, and duration. Use it to inspect monitor activity.
Get recent ping history for a monitor. Shows when pings were received, their type (success/start/fail), source IP, and duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Monitor UUID | |
| limit | No | Number of pings to return (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully describes returned ping attributes (timestamp, type, source IP, duration), but does not state read-only behavior, ordering, time range, or error handling.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, with the primary action front-loaded and the returned fields summarized efficiently.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key returned fields, which helps the agent understand the result shape. It remains slightly incomplete about ordering or time-range behavior, but is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (uuid and limit) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate for the baseline score.
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 specific verb and resource: retrieves recent ping history for a monitor. The description also lists the returned fields, making the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_monitor or get_incidents.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_monitor or get_incidents. The intended use is implied by 'for a monitor,' but there are no exclusions or comparative instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.