is-it-down

Check Service Status

check_service_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Current incident state for one named service.

Returns the normalised state (operational, degraded, down, unknown), the provider's own description, and a link to the full status page. Use when you already know which provider you care about.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	Yes	Slug of the service to check. One of: github, npm, cloudflare, anthropic, openai, vercel, netlify, render, supabase, mongodb, digitalocean, docker, circleci, sentry, datadog, twilio, atlassian, bitbucket, discord, hashicorp.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human name of the provider.
`state`	Yes	Normalised state. "unknown" means the status page could not be read, NOT that the service is down.
`cached`	No	Whether this answer came from the 45 second cache rather than a fresh fetch.
`healthy`	No	True when operational, false when degraded or down, null when unknown.
`meaning`	Yes	Plain-language reading of the state, safe to show a user verbatim.
`service`	Yes	The slug that was checked.
`indicator`	No	Raw statuspage.io indicator: none, minor, major or critical.
`reachable`	Yes	Whether the status page itself answered.
`updated_at`	No	When the provider last updated the page (ISO 8601).
`description`	No	The provider's own one-line summary, when it publishes one.
`status_page`	No	URL a human can open to read the full incident history.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing what the response contains: normalized state, provider description, and a status page link. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's observational nature.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and return-value details follow immediately, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the service parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current incident state for one named service, listing the specific normalized states and complementary details. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'one named service,' which contrasts with check_all_services and list_supported_services.

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 phrase 'Use when you already know which provider you care about' provides a clear usage context and implicitly steers the agent away from list_supported_services or check_all_services. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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?