is-it-down

Check All Services

check_all_services

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is anything I depend on broken right now?

Checks every supported provider in parallel and returns a one-sentence summary plus per-service detail. Use this first: it answers the whole question in one call. Optionally narrow with ?services=github,npm. A provider whose status page cannot be read is reported as "unknown", never as healthy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`services`	No	Optional comma-separated slugs to narrow the check, e.g. "github,npm,cloudflare". Omit to check all.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`down`	No	Slugs with a major or critical incident open.
`checked`	Yes	How many services were checked.
`summary`	Yes	One sentence answering "is anything broken right now", safe to show verbatim.
`unknown`	No	Slugs whose status page could not be read.
`degraded`	No	Slugs with a minor incident open.
`services`	Yes	Full per-service detail.
`all_operational`	Yes	True only when every checked service reports no known problems AND every status page was reachable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: parallel checking, the returned summary-plus-detail shape, optional narrowing, and especially the guarantee that unreadable providers are reported as 'unknown' rather than healthy.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the problem framing, the parallel-check behavior, the 'use first' guidance, the optional parameter, and the important unknown-status semantics.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will happen, how to narrow scope, how failures are represented, and how this tool fits into the overall workflow, leaving no important gap.

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?

The schema already documents the services parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving concrete example slugs ('github,npm'), explaining that omission checks all providers, and tying the parameter to the behavior of narrowing the check.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it checks every supported provider in parallel and returns a one-sentence summary plus per-service detail. The opening user-focused question frames the purpose, and the scope is distinct from the sibling check_service_status, which is for a single provider.

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?

The description gives clear usage context with 'Use this first: it answers the whole question in one call' and explains optional narrowing via the services parameter. It does not explicitly name when to use the sibling check_service_status or list_supported_services instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All is-it-down tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing supported services, checking one named service, and checking all services at once. Even though check_all_services and check_service_status both check status, the all-vs-one distinction is obvious and reinforced by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_all_services, check_service_status, and list_supported_services. The naming clearly indicates both the action and the target, making the set predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped set for a simple uptime/status-checking server. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary purpose with no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the domain: discovery of supported services, checking a single service, and checking all services. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose, and unsupported arbitrary URLs are explicitly disallowed.

Resources

Need Help?