Live status for 172 cloud and SaaS vendors from their official feeds. Is it you, or is it them?
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, and where overlap exists (e.g., search vs search_providers, fetch vs get_incident_details), descriptions clearly differentiate by entry point and use case.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_provider_status, list_active_incidents), but a few outliers like fetch, search, and check_my_stack deviate from the noun structure, though still readable.
14 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and covers the main functions of a status monitoring dashboard without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers searching, status checks, incident details, reliability reports, and custom provider CRUD. Missing unwatch/list watched providers are minor gaps but core workflows are supported.
add_custom_providerAdd a custom providerAInspectRegisters a vendor OutageDeck does not track by pointing at its Statuspage or Instatus status page, so it joins the caller's account with live status, incident history, and alerting. Requires an API key and a plan that includes custom providers. The feed is read live before anything is saved, and it must be reachable from the public internet. Feeds behind authentication are set up on the account page instead, so credentials never travel through a conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The vendor's status page address, for example https://status.yourvendor.com. | |
| name | No | Optional display name. Defaults to the name the status page publishes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavior: the feed is read live before saving, must be publicly reachable, and credentials never travel through conversation. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.
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?
Three sentences, each delivering distinct value: purpose, prerequisites, and validation/security behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, validation, security, and usage exclusions. It doesn't describe the success response, but that's a minor gap given the annotations and sibling context.
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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context that the URL should point to a Statuspage or Instatus status page and must be publicly reachable, which is helpful but not a large departure from the schema. It doesn't add significant new parameter-level detail.
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 clearly states the tool registers a vendor not tracked by OutageDeck by pointing to its Statuspage or Instatus page, with a specific outcome. This differentiates it from sibling CRUD tools like update_custom_provider and remove_custom_provider.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use context (for vendors OutageDeck does not track) and a when-not-to-use rule (feeds behind authentication must be set up on the account page). It also states prerequisites like API key and plan, giving clear guidance without naming alternative tools but still steering correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_my_stackCheck a whole stackAOne verdict across up to 12 providers: whether any vendor in the list is reporting a problem right now. Use before debugging an integration failure to answer "is it us or them?" in a single call. Returns a shareable status-board link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | Yes | Provider slugs, names, or product names, one per vendor the stack depends on. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns a shareable status-board link') and the aggregation logic ('whether any vendor in the list is reporting a problem right now'), which are not evident from annotations alone.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage and return info. There is zero fluff, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage scenario, and return value (shareable link), which is sufficient for most use cases. It does not cover error handling or invalid-provider cases, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward read operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the providers parameter already documented as 'Provider slugs, names, or product names, one per vendor the stack depends on.' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: it provides a single verdict across up to 12 providers about whether any vendor is reporting a problem. This distinguishes it from single-provider tools like get_provider_status and list_active_incidents, making the purpose explicit and specific.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use before debugging an integration failure to answer "is it us or them?" in a single call.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It implies a quick multi-provider check, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch an OutageDeck documentARetrieve the full text of one search result by its id: a provider's current status with its services and open incidents, or an incident's complete timeline. Ids come from the search tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A document id returned by search, e.g., "provider:aws" or "incident:github-actions-delays-2026-07-31". |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the returned content (current status vs. complete timeline) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is acceptable given the annotations, though richer context would be beneficial.
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, using two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve the full text') and immediately clarifies scope, with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, a complete schema, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose, ID source, and content types. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention error cases or fallback behavior, but these are likely covered by the output schema.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'id' with examples and expected format. The description adds a minor note that IDs come from the search tool, which is helpful but not necessary since the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full text of a search result by ID, with specific detail on two types of content (provider status and incident timeline). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_incident_details by emphasizing it works on search results and returns full text, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 that IDs come from the search tool, indicating this is meant to be used after a search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_incident_detailsGet incident detailsAFull detail for one incident: the provider's own update timeline in chronological order, affected services, severity, and resolution state. Pass the incident slug returned by list_active_incidents or get_provider_status. Use to read what the vendor has actually said about an outage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident | Yes | Incident slug, e.g., from an earlier list_active_incidents result. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (provider's own timeline, affected services, severity, resolution state) and clarifying that it reads vendor statements about an outage. This contextualizes the read-only nature and expected output.
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?
Three concise sentences: first states what the tool returns, second explains where to get the input, third gives usage context. No redundant or wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return contents, input source, and purpose. It addresses the essential aspects without gaps, making it complete for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 schema has one parameter 'incident' with a description that already mentions it is a slug from list_active_incidents. The tool description reinforces this and adds get_provider_status as an alternative source, enhancing understanding. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful clarification beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: getting full detail for one incident, enumerating specific content (chronological update timeline, affected services, severity, resolution state). It also identifies the resource (incident) and distinguishes from sibling list tools by requiring a specific incident slug from list_active_incidents or get_provider_status.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisites: pass the incident slug returned by list_active_incidents or get_provider_status. States the intended use: 'Use to read what the vendor has actually said about an outage.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives beyond the slug sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_outage_reportGet the cross-vendor outage reportAA reliability summary across every tracked provider over a trailing window (7-90 days, default 30): incident totals, severity and category breakdowns, the providers hit hardest by major outages, and the longest-running severe incidents. Use to answer "which vendors had outages recently?" or to compare vendor reliability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Trailing window in days (default 30). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the report's scope and content (trailing window, incident breakdowns) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or data freshness.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The first sentence lists what the report includes, and the second gives concrete use cases, every sentence earning its place.
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?
Given the simple 1-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it. It enumerates the report's contents, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the descriptive listing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, which already has a description in the schema. The tool description repeats the default and range, adding no new information beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states it provides a reliability summary across all tracked providers, listing specific contents like incident totals and severity breakdowns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_incident_details (specific incident) and get_provider_status (single provider).
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to answer 'which vendors had outages recently?' or to compare vendor reliability. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_provider_statusGet provider statusALive status for one tracked provider: overall state, non-operational services, and open incidents, read from the vendor's official status feed. Accepts a slug, provider name, or product name (e.g., "claude" resolves to Anthropic). Use this first for any "is X down?" question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider slug, name, or product name, e.g., "aws", "GitHub", "chatgpt". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added context about reading from the vendor's official status feed and accepting product names (e.g., 'claude' resolves to Anthropic) provides useful behavioral detail beyond the structured 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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides input flexibility and direct usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return content (overall state, non-operational services, open incidents), the data source, and usage context. It is complete for this complexity level.
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 schema already describes the provider parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concrete resolution example of 'claude' mapping to Anthropic, enriching the semantic understanding of product-name resolution beyond the schema's examples.
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 clearly states 'Live status for one tracked provider: overall state, non-operational services, and open incidents' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_uptime and list_active_incidents by specifying the aggregated single-provider status and naming the data source.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first for any "is X down?" question.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_uptimeGet uptime historyAIndependent uptime record for one provider over a trailing window (7-90 days, default 30), computed from OutageDeck's own observations of the vendor's official feed: share of time free of major outages, strict uptime with partial outages counted as downtime, and total impaired durations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Trailing window in days (default 30). | |
| provider | Yes | Provider slug, name, or product name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the data source ('OutageDeck's own observations of the vendor's official feed') and the exact metrics computed, which are not visible in the schema or 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept ('Independent uptime record') and packs in window range, default, calculation source, and output metrics without redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains source, window, and the three metrics returned. The only gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'provider' is described as slug/name/product, and 'days' has min/max/default. The description adds little beyond restating the trailing window range, so it matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'uptime record for one provider over a trailing window.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_provider_status or get_outage_report by emphasizing 'Independent uptime record' and the windowed computation from OutageDeck's own observations.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need historical uptime metrics for a single provider over a custom trailing window. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_provider_status instead), falling short of the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_active_incidentsList active incidentsAEvery incident currently open across all tracked providers, most severe first. Optionally filter by severity (critical, major, minor, maintenance). Use to answer "what is down right now?" across the whole cloud landscape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No | Only incidents of this severity. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns all open incidents, orders by severity (most severe first), and supports an optional severity filter. 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, then a practical usage cue. No filler or redundant phrases.
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?
Given the simple schema (one optional param), strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope, ordering, and filtering. It could mention the return format but the current text is sufficient for most agents.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the one optional parameter (severity) with enum and description. The description restates the filter and lists values, adding minor clarity but not exceeding the schema baseline.
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 clearly states the tool lists active incidents across all tracked providers, ordered by severity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_provider_status (provider-specific) and get_incident_details (single incident) by emphasizing the whole landscape and 'currently open' scope.
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?
It explicitly provides a use case ('What is down right now?') and clarifies it applies across the entire cloud landscape. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_custom_providersList my custom providersALists the custom providers on the caller's own OutageDeck account: vendors they registered themselves by pointing at a status feed we do not track in the public catalog. Requires an API key, and only ever returns that key owner's providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool 'Requires an API key' and 'only ever returns that key owner's providers', which clarifies authentication and data scoping. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Lists the custom providers'), and every clause adds meaning: the account scope, the definition of custom providers, and the API key requirement. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple, parameterless listing tool, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, whose account it applies to, and the authentication requirement. There is no output schema, but the description implies a list of providers; it could potentially clarify the output structure or fields, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so per the instructions, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on any input schema since the schema is empty. The description focuses on the tool's scope and output, which is appropriate for a parameterless operation.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('custom providers'), and a clear scope ('on the caller's own OutageDeck account'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying that these are 'vendors they registered themselves by pointing at a status feed we do not track in the public catalog', differentiating it from search_providers or get_provider_status.
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 on when to use the tool: when you want to see the caller's own registered custom providers, not public catalog providers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies that this is for user-specific data, which is sufficient guidance given the sibling tool names and the focus on 'custom' providers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
remove_custom_providerRemove a custom providerADeletes one of the caller's custom providers and its stored incident history, freeing a slot on their plan. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | The custom provider's name or id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes further by disclosing that stored incident history is also deleted and that an API key is required. These are meaningful behavioral specifics not captured in the annotations, adding transparency beyond the structured metadata.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds two relevant consequences (history deletion and plan slot freeing), plus a clear authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter deletion tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is deleted, the side effect on incident history, the plan impact, and the authentication requirement. No material gaps remain.
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 schema already covers the parameter with 100% coverage, describing 'provider' as 'The custom provider's name or id.' The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Hence, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the primary action ('Deletes one of the caller's custom providers') and the specific resource affected. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like add_custom_provider and update_custom_provider by focusing on deletion, and adds relevant consequences (freeing a plan slot).
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the caller wants to remove a custom provider. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list provides contextual contrast. The mention of freeing a plan slot gives additional decision-relevant context, though it stops short of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch OutageDeckASearch everything OutageDeck tracks: cloud and SaaS providers, and their incident history. Returns citable results with stable ids for the fetch tool. Use for open questions like "who had outages last week" or "find the GitHub Actions incident"; use get_provider_status when the question is simply whether one named vendor is down right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for: a vendor name, a product, or words from an incident title, e.g., "cloudflare", "elevated error rates". |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by noting that results are citable and have stable IDs suitable for the fetch tool, and that it searches the full scope of OutageDeck data. No contradiction 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 two well-structured sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes concrete examples and an alternative tool without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With a single parameter, a clear output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. The sibling comparison and citable-results hint complete the picture.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the input schema already describes the query parameter in detail with examples. The description adds some context about open-ended queries but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches everything OutageDeck tracks, including providers and incident history, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_provider_status, a key sibling, and mentions the stable-id/fetch integration.
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?
Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: use for open questions like 'who had outages last week' or 'find the GitHub Actions incident', and use get_provider_status when the question is only about one named vendor currently being down. This clearly differentiates from an important alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_providersSearch tracked providersAFind tracked providers by name, product name, or fragment ("postgres", "auth", "claude"). Returns slugs to use with the other tools plus each match's current status. Use when a provider argument did not resolve or to discover what OutageDeck tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search over provider names and aliases. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context beyond these by specifying that it returns slugs and each match's current status, which is useful behavioral information. No contradiction 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output; the second gives usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter search tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value (slugs and status), and when to use it. Minor omissions like result ordering or pagination are not essential for this tool's context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, and the description enriches it by explaining searchable fields (name, product name, fragment) and providing concrete examples ('postgres', 'auth', 'claude'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'names and aliases'.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tracked providers by name, product name, or fragment.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like the generic 'search' by emphasizing it returns provider slugs for use with other tools and that it searches tracked providers specifically.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when a provider argument did not resolve or to discover what OutageDeck tracks.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_custom_providerUpdate a custom providerARenames one of the caller's custom providers, points it at a different status page, or pauses and resumes its checks. Requires an API key. A new address is read live before it is stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | New status page address. | |
| name | No | New display name. | |
| state | No | Resume or pause its 10-minute checks. | |
| provider | Yes | The custom provider's name or id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds useful context: it requires an API key and that a new address is read live before being stored. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions, authentication requirement, and a notable behavioral detail. It is adequately complete, though it does not explain return values (acceptable given the tool's simplicity).
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds only minor context for the url parameter (live-read behavior) and does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: it renames a custom provider, points it at a different status page, or pauses/resumes checks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_custom_provider and remove_custom_provider.
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 implies when to use the tool (updating an existing provider) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions like 'for creating use add_custom_provider'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
watch_providerWatch a providerAStarts sending the caller outage alerts for one provider, either from the tracked catalog or from their own custom providers. Requires an API key. Alerts are emailed to the account address; the other channels (Slack, Teams, Discord, webhook) are set up on the account page, so no webhook URL ever has to be shared in a conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | A tracked provider (slug, name, or product name) or one of the caller's own custom providers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses authentication (API key) and delivery mechanism (email + account-page channels), adding context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare idempotence and non-readonly; the description is consistent and adds operational detail.
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?
Three sentences, all earning their place: purpose, auth requirement, and channel setup. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-param action, it covers the essential behavioral context. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema, so that is a minor gap.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of provider as slug/name/product or custom provider. The description mirrors this without adding extra syntax or format details.
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 uses 'Starts sending outage alerts' which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_provider_status and get_outage_report by focusing on ongoing alerting rather than querying.
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?
Indicates the tool requires an API key and clarifies that alerts are emailed while other channels are configured on the account page. This gives practical context, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!