Live status and health checks for AI coding providers: Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Codex and more.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Tools target similar information but with different outputs: one provides detailed status, the other a binary health flag. Descriptions clarify the distinction, though some overlap remains.
Tool names use different verb styles ('ai_provider_status' vs 'check_provider_health') and different nouns ('status' vs 'health'), lacking a consistent pattern.
Two tools is slightly minimal but appropriate for a narrow purpose of checking provider status. Could arguably be combined, but separation is useful.
The set covers the core need: detailed status and a simplified health check. No obvious gaps for the stated domain of checking AI provider status.
ai_provider_statusAInspectGet the live status of AI coding providers (Claude, OpenAI, Copilot, Cursor, OpenRouter and more). Returns status, how long each provider has been in its current state, and last check time. Pass service_id for one provider, omit it for all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | No | Optional provider id, e.g. claude, openai, github_copilot, cursor, openrouter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description transparently discloses the return fields: status, duration, last check time. It implies a read-only operation and is sufficient for a status tool.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the behavior. No unnecessary words.
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?
Completes the picture without output schema by stating what the tool returns. The simplicity of the tool and high schema coverage make this sufficient.
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?
Adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of including or omitting the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description clarifies usage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets live status of AI coding providers, listing examples. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by focus on status rather than health.
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?
Explicitly states how to use the parameter: pass service_id for one provider, omit for all. Could improve by noting when to use check_provider_health instead, but sufficient for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_provider_healthAInspectCheck whether one or more AI coding providers are healthy enough to use right now. Returns healthy=true only when every requested provider is operational (or within the allowed statuses). Use this before starting work that depends on a provider, or to decide which provider to route to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| services | Yes | Provider ids to check, e.g. ["claude", "openrouter"] | |
| allow_degraded | No | Treat degraded performance as healthy (default false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the return condition ('healthy=true only when every requested provider is operational or within allowed statuses'), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or network behavior. Adequate but not rich.
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 waste. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage. Every sentence is necessary and informative.
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?
Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, usage, and basic behavior. Missing explicit return format details (e.g., exact JSON structure) but not critical for a boolean health check.
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 baseline 3. Descriptions for both parameters exist in the schema; the tool description does not add meaningful extra meaning beyond restating those definitions.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('provider health'), clearly stating it returns healthy=true only when all requested providers are operational. It distinguishes from sibling tool ai_provider_status by focusing on aggregated multi-provider health checks.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use: 'before starting work that depends on a provider, or to decide which provider to route to.' Does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare with sibling, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!