List the project's status pages: id, slug, title, the monitors on each, visibility, and the public URL of any public page. A status page is how a monitor's health is shown to people who are not in the project — customers, or another team. This is also the read you need before update_status_page, because its check_ids REPLACE the page's monitor set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description calls the operation 'List' and a 'read', but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct Annotation Contradiction. The description does not acknowledge or reconcile this conflict.
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 focused sentences. The first front-loads the action and output fields, and the second adds valuable context about status pages and the relationship to update_status_page. No unnecessary 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?
Given there is no output schema, the description nicely enumerates the return fields and explains the tool's purpose and relationship to update_status_page. However, the overall definition is not contextually complete because the description fails to address or correct the contradictory destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, which could mislead an agent about the tool's safety.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description's field list helps with output expectations rather than parameter semantics.
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 starts with 'List the project's status pages' and enumerates the returned fields, clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It also ties the tool to update_status_page as the prerequisite read, which distinguishes it from sibling status-page tools.
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 this is the read needed before update_status_page and explains why: its check_ids REPLACE the page's monitor set. This gives a concrete use condition, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus list_monitors or other alternatives.
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.
Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.
Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.
Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.
Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.
