status
Current operational status for one or all AI API providers (from each provider's public status page).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Provider slug; omit for all providers. |
AI API Radar
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that data comes from public status pages, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. Could mention lack of authentication or potential delays, but still adequate.
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?
Single sentence containing all essential information without any filler or redundancy; highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and data source. It does not explain return format, but that is often inferable for a status endpoint.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. Tool description adds context (data source) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'current operational status' for AI API providers, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (cheapest_model, price_change_alerts, price_history) that focus on pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking status as opposed to pricing tools, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: cheapest model search, price change alerts, price history, and provider status. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use lowercase with underscores and follow a predictable noun_noun or adjective_noun pattern. Naming is clear and consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of monitoring AI API prices and status. Each tool is justified.
Completeness3/5
While core functionalities are covered, the server lacks a tool to list available providers or models, which is a notable gap for initial discovery.