Get 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.