get_uptimeIndependent 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.