Status summary
get_status_summaryUp/down/paused counts plus a list of currently down monitors with the timestamp they went down.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
hyperping
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output (counts and down list with timestamps). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, but as a 'get' tool with no parameters, it is implicitly safe. With no annotations, the description provides adequate transparency for a simple read tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous words. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention behavior when no monitors exist or if counts are real-time, but for a simple summary tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with zero parameters, so the description is not required to document parameters. It adds value by describing the output structure, which is beyond what the schema provides.
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 provides up/down/paused counts and a list of down monitors with timestamps. This is a specific verb (get) and resource (status summary), and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual monitors or lists.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_monitors or search_monitors_by_name. Usage is implied by the description, but there is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific resource or action (monitor, outage, escalation policy, etc.) with clear naming. No two tools could be easily confused; even similar ones like get_monitor_outages and get_monitor_anomalies serve distinct purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, pause_, resume_, search_, update_) and use snake_case uniformly. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5
With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but each tool serves a distinct monitoring function (monitors, outages, escalations, integrations, schedules, alerts, team members). The count is reasonable for the domain.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented, lacking create/update/delete for most resource types (escalation policies, integrations, on-call schedules, outages). Even monitors lack a delete tool. This leaves significant gaps for administrative workflows.