Live status for 172 cloud and SaaS vendors from their official feeds. Is it you, or is it them?
Scored across 14 tools
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate tricky pairs (search vs get_provider_status, fetch vs get_incident_details). Minor overlap remains between fetch (which can return incident timelines) and get_incident_details, and between check_my_stack and list_active_incidents, but the boundaries are stated clearly.
Nearly all tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_provider_status, list_active_incidents, add_custom_provider, remove_custom_provider). The bare verbs `fetch` and `search` break the pattern, but the overall convention is clear and readable.
Fourteen tools fit comfortably in the well-scoped range and each maps to a distinct capability: lookups, search, reports, custom-provider CRUD, and alerting. Nothing feels redundant or padded.
Custom-provider lifecycle is fully covered (add/list/update/remove) and query surface spans status, incidents, uptime, reports, and search. The main gap is alert management: watch_provider can start alerts but there is no tool to list or stop watching a catalog provider, which agents must handle outside the API.
Registers 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.
One verdict across up to 12 providers: whether any vendor in the list is reported as having 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 and a prefilled alert setup 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it returns a shareable status-board link and a prefilled alert setup link, which an agent could not infer from the schema.
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 tight sentences: scope first, then the decision context, then the return payload. Nothing is redundant and the most important qualifier (up to 12 providers) 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the returned artifacts (status-board link, alert setup link). It is nearly complete for a one-param read tool, though it could say more about what the 'verdict' contains when nothing is wrong.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which documents the accepted slug/name/product-name forms. The description adds the 'up to 12' bound but no additional syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: a single verdict across up to 12 providers about whether any vendor is currently reporting a problem. The batch scope ('up to 12 providers') is a clear functional differentiator from single-vendor siblings like get_provider_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives clear context ('Use before debugging an integration failure to answer "is it us or them?"') and implies the pre-diagnosis moment. It stops short of naming the alternative single-provider tools or stating when not to use this batch version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve 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.
Full detail for one incident: updates from the official incident source in chronological order, the services OutageDeck matched to it, severity, and resolution state. Pass the incident slug returned by list_active_incidents or get_provider_status. Use to read what the official source 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses what the read actually returns and frames it as the authoritative source's own statements, which signals the data's provenance and possible staleness. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or freshness guarantees.
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, thoroughly front-loaded: the core purpose and return contents come first, then the slug source, then the use case. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.
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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the four categories of returned data. Coverage is strong for a read tool; only error/freshness behavior and the relationship to overlapping siblings like get_outage_report remain unaddressed.
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% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents the 'incident' slug with an example. The description restates its origin but adds no format, validation, or lookup rules beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('full detail for one incident') and enumerates the returned content: chronological updates from the official source, matched services, severity, and resolution state. That enumeration cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_provider_status, list_active_incidents, and get_outage_report without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent where the required slug comes from ('returned by list_active_incidents or get_provider_status') and gives a clear use statement ('read what the official source has actually said about an outage'). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_outage_report or check_my_stack, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
A 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.
Live 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.
Independent 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.
Every 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.
Lists 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.
Deletes 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.
Search 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.
Find 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.
Renames 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 checks, which run about every 10 minutes. | |
| provider | Yes | The custom provider's name or id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: an API key is required, a new URL is fetched live before being stored (a validation side effect), and checks run roughly every 10 minutes.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, followed by the auth requirement and the validation behavior. No filler and no repetition of the parameter list.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all modes, the auth requirement, and the URL validation behavior. It would be stronger with a note on what happens for an unknown provider name or partial-update semantics, but nothing essential is missing.
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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for the url parameter — that the address is read live before it is stored — and clarifies that state toggles checks that run about every 10 minutes. It complements rather than merely repeats 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?
States a specific verb (update) plus the resource (the caller's custom provider) and enumerates the three concrete mutation modes: rename, repoint the status page URL, and pause/resume checks. This cleanly separates it from add_custom_provider, remove_custom_provider, and list_custom_providers.
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 enumerated modes imply when the tool is appropriate, and the sibling names (add/remove/list) make the boundary fairly obvious, but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus an alternative or when it should not be used. Usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Starts 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
update_custom_provider1 field changedInput schema / properties / state / descriptionPrevious value: -"Resume or pause its 10-minute checks."New value: +"Resume or pause its checks, which run about every 10 minutes."add_custom_providercheck_my_stackfetchget_incident_detailsget_outage_reportget_provider_statusget_uptimelist_active_incidentslist_custom_providersremove_custom_providersearchsearch_providersupdate_custom_providerwatch_providerLive status probes plus published uptime and incident history for 280+ APIs and cloud services.
Is GitHub, npm, Cloudflare or your AI provider down right now? 20 status pages, one call.
Real-time status & uptime monitoring for 294 popular APIs — is it down, and how reliable?
Live service status, active incidents, search, and outage history from Downtester.
