PeppolStatus

get_host_uptime

Read-only

Get a host's uptime aggregates

The aggregate ladder for a host at a chosen resolution, per-location plus the __all__ rollup, optionally windowed by [from, to), cursor-paginated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	Exclusive upper bound (ISO 8601).
`from`	No	Inclusive lower bound (ISO 8601). Must not be after `to`.
`limit`	No	Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50.
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page.
`hostname`	Yes	The host's fully-qualified hostname.
`location`	No	Restrict to one probe location, or `__all__` for the rollup.
`resolution`	No	Aggregate tier. Defaults to hourly.	hourly

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a per-location rollup including __all__, supports date-range windowing with half-open semantics, and is cursor-paginated. These details are not present in the annotation and add meaningful context for the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two succinct sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose immediately, and the second elaborates on key details without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, aggregate levels, pagination) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: aggregate ladder, per-location rollup, windowing, and cursor pagination. It does not describe the exact return fields of an uptime aggregate, but the schema and annotations largely compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, achieving the baseline. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, mostly rephrasing concepts like resolution and windowing already documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Get a host's uptime aggregates,' a specific verb and resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further differentiates from siblings by detailing the aggregate ladder, per-location rollup, and optional windowing, which distinguishes it from other host/network tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving uptime aggregates at various resolutions and locations, with windowing and pagination. It provides clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using get_host for basic host details or list_hosts for enumeration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PeppolStatus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?