search_providersFind 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.
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.