Skip to main content
Glama

Uptimepage

by dev.uptimepage

Usage against plan

get_org_usage
Read-only

Org resource usage against plan limits: monitors, status pages, members, components, and key policy values. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesPlan id (e.g. `free`, `pro`).
membersYes
targetsYes
status_pagesYes
retention_daysYesHistory retention, days.
public_componentsYes
maintenance_windowsYes
notification_channelsYes
min_check_interval_secsYesMinimum allowed check interval, seconds.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is reinforced by 'Read-only'. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation by specifying the resources included (monitors, status pages, members, components, key policy values) and the 'against plan limits' aspect, which clarifies what data the tool reports. No contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and key details. No filler, no redundant phrasing, and the information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and what domain it addresses. The output schema handles return-value explanations. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.

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 clearly states the tool provides org resource usage against plan limits, listing specific resource types (monitors, status pages, members, components, key policy values). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from siblings like get_org_health or list_monitors.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Read-only' hints at safety, it doesn't explain the intended use case or contrast it with similar tools like get_org_health or list_status_pages. The context is implied but not stated.

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

All Uptimepage toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: flow runs, step trends, incidents, incident metrics, monitors, monitor history, org health, org usage, status pages, notification channels, regions, status pages lists, and tags. The get_ vs list_ distinction is consistent and each pair (e.g., get_monitor vs list_monitors) is clearly separated by depth of detail. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using only 'get_' for single-item or aggregate detail and 'list_' for collections. Objects are consistently named (monitor, incident, status_page, org_*). This predictive pattern makes it easy to guess tool behavior from the name.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, this server sits at the upper bound of the well-scoped range, yet every tool fills a clear niche: monitoring details, history, incidents, flow-specific analytics, org-level views, and reference data (regions, tags, channels). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for a read-only monitoring API.

Completeness4/5

The read-only surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering monitors, incidents, flow runs, step trends, status pages, notification channels, regions, tags, and org health/usage. The only notable gap is the lack of any mutation tools (e.g., update_monitor, acknowledge_incident) which the descriptions hint at but do not expose, so agents cannot act on the information—only observe.

Resources