Check platform status, active incidents, and maintenances.
Args: network: Optional filter (e.g., "ethereum"). Without it, returns overall status and incidents only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| incidents | Yes | ||
| components | No | ||
| maintenances | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail about the network parameter's effect on the response (overall status and incidents only when omitted), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a parameter line. It front-loads the primary purpose and then clarifies the optional argument. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema (which shifts return-value explanation to schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, the optional filter, and the conditional behavior of that filter. The tool's complexity is low (one optional param), and the description is complete for proper selection and invocation.
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?
The sole parameter 'network' has zero schema description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining it as an optional filter, providing an example ('ethereum'), and stating the behavior when omitted. This gives complete semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks.
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 opens with a clear verb ('Check') and specific resources ('platform status, active incidents, and maintenances'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings, as it is the only tool focused on platform health rather than resource CRUD or documentation.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check platform health and incidents) without explicit alternative comparisons. Sibling tools are obviously different (CRUD, docs, pricing), so the usage context is clear. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but this is not critical given the distinct purpose.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: nodes, projects, docs, pricing, status, org, faucet, and contact. There is no overlap between list/get, create/update/delete, or the doc search vs fetch tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, get_project, list_nodes, update_node, delete_project). Underscore separator and lowercase are used throughout with no mixed conventions.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the platform's domain. The count is appropriate for a platform with project, node, documentation, pricing, status, and faucet features.
The tool set provides full CRUD for both projects and nodes, plus deployment options, pricing, docs search/retrieval, platform status, organization info, testnet faucet, and a contact channel. There are no obvious dead ends for the workflows the server advertises.
