Agent Tested

Check AI provider outages (What Broke Today)

check_outages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Current status, per-component status where the feed has it, and incidents from the last 7 days for 20 AI and developer providers (OpenAI, Anthropic (Claude), Google Gemini, xAI (Grok), Mistral AI, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Replit, Vercel v0, Lovable, Bolt.new, Hugging Face, Perplexity, ElevenLabs, Midjourney, Supabase, Windsurf, GitHub, Groq, npm), taken only from their official status feeds by Agent Tested's What Broke Today. Aliases work too, e.g. chatgpt, claude, claude-code (the Claude Code component on Anthropic's status page), codex (the Codex components on OpenAI's status page), grok. Omit provider to get only providers that are not fully operational. Feeds can lag; quote the check time.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_outages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	No	Provider id or common name, e.g. openai, chatgpt, codex, claude, claude-code, grok, github, groq, cursor
`include_incidents`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider / description

Previous value: -"Provider id or common name, e.g. openai, chatgpt, claude, claude-code, grok, github, groq, cursor"New value: +"Provider id or common name, e.g. openai, chatgpt, codex, claude, claude-code, grok, github, groq, cursor"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider / description

Previous value: -"Provider id or common name, e.g. openai, chatgpt, claude, grok, cursor"New value: +"Provider id or common name, e.g. openai, chatgpt, claude, claude-code, grok, github, groq, cursor"

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: data comes only from official status feeds, feeds can lag, and the agent should quote the check time. Missing are whether responses are cached, rate limits, and the return shape, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Scope is front-loaded and every clause is informative, but the 20-provider parenthetical is a long inline list that inflates a single run-on sentence. Efficient overall, just denser than necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the essential payload (current status, per-component status, 7-day incidents) and the source caveat. It stops short of describing the response structure or what a non-operational provider entry looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: `provider` is documented in the schema and the description adds alias/value semantics (chatgpt, claude-code, codex, grok) on top. `include_incidents` is undocumented in both, and the description's '7 days' incidents framing never states that this flag toggles them off.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('current status... and incidents'), the exact scope (20 named providers, last 7 days) and the data provenance (official status feeds). The provider enumeration and alias examples make it unmistakable which tool handles outage lookups vs. the registry/report siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule for the optional parameter ('Omit provider to get only providers that are not fully operational'), plus alias forms to use. No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, but no sibling is a plausible substitute here.

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

All Agent Tested tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?