Skip to main content
Glama

list_netwatch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves netwatch probes with live status and measurements, with filters for host, type, comment, or status to identify failing links.

Instructions

Lists the netwatch probes with their live status and measurements.

Each entry reports status (up / down / unknown), since — the timestamp of the last transition — and, on an ICMP probe, the last test's numbers: rtt-avg, loss-percent, failed-tests. None of that is in an export.

Notes: host_filter and comment_filter are substring matches; status_filter and type_filter are exact. Pass status_filter="down" to list only what is currently failing.

`include_source=False` (the default) omits `up-script`,
`down-script` and `test-script`, because a probe that alerts through a
webhook or an e-mail carries the token or the password inline. Set it
to True only when you intend to read those commands; the output is
redacted either way, but redaction is pattern-based and is not a
guarantee.

A probe with no `src-address` follows whichever WAN is active, so it
keeps reporting across a failover; one pinned to a source address
reports that path only. Which of the two you want depends on whether
you are watching the internet or a specific link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNo
host_filterNo
type_filterNo
status_filterNo
comment_filterNo
include_sourceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.25.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, so the bar is low, yet the description adds genuinely valuable behavior: scripts may contain inline credentials, output is redacted but redaction is pattern-based and 'not a guarantee', and source-pinned probes report only one path. This is exactly the kind of safety and semantics context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose sentence followed by clearly delineated notes; almost every sentence carries operational meaning. The closing sentence about watching 'the internet or a specific link' is slightly editorial, and the return-field enumeration is partly redundant with the output schema, but overall it is well organized and earns its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, return values are already covered, and the description still adds filter semantics, the include_source security caveat, and failover behavior. The main gap is the undocumented `device` parameter and any device-selection context, plus no note about pagination or result volume for a list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and mostly does: it explains that host_filter/comment_filter are substring matches, status_filter/type_filter are exact, and that include_source defaults to False and controls up-script/down-script/test-script. The `device` parameter is never mentioned in either schema or description, leaving one of six params undocumented.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('Lists the netwatch probes with their live status and measurements') and immediately names the fields the entries carry (`status`, `since`, RTT/loss/failed-tests). No sibling tool covers netwatch, so the scope is unambiguous, and it even contrasts itself against export output ('None of that is in an export').

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?

Gives concrete usage direction for parameters: use status_filter="down" to list failing probes, set include_source=True only when you intend to read the inline scripts, and a decision rule for src-address-pinned vs dynamic probes. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool guidance, but with no netwatch sibling that gap is minor.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools