Skip to main content
Glama

Uptimepage

by dev.uptimepage

List incidents

list_incidents
Read-only

List the org's incidents: incident id, affected monitor, severity, open/resolved times, and latest update phase. Defaults to currently-open ones; pass state="all" with an optional from/to window (default: last 30 days) for resolved history, and monitor_id to narrow to one monitor. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoRFC 3339 end of the window. Defaults to now. Incidents that opened after it are excluded, running or not.
fromNoRFC 3339 start of the window. Defaults to 30 days ago. An incident that is still running is listed however long ago it opened.
stateNoWhich incidents to return: `open` (default) for the ones still running, or `all` to include resolved ones inside the window.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous call's `next_cursor`. It carries the whole query, so send it on its own: any other filter passed alongside it is ignored rather than silently changing the page.
monitor_idNoRestrict to one monitor (id from `list_monitors`).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
fromYesRFC 3339 window actually read, after the defaults and the one-year cap. It bounds the *resolved* incidents only: one that is still running is listed however long ago it opened, so it can be older than `from`. Describe spans from these, never from what was asked for.
itemsYes
next_cursorNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description reaffirms 'Read-only' without contradicting it. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotation: default state (currently-open), default time window (last 30 days), and the interplay between state and window. It doesn't mention pagination or cursor behavior, but those are covered in the schema, so the burden on the description is lower.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and output fields, then defaults and filters, then a one-word safety confirmation. No filler or redundant explanation – every sentence earns its place.

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 a 5-parameter list tool with output schema, the description covers the main usage modes (open vs. all, time window, monitor filter) and returned fields. It doesn't mention pagination or the fact that the cursor carries the whole query, but those are explicitly handled in the schema descriptions. Slightly more detail on when to use list vs. get_incident would round it out.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query semantics: how state='all' combines with from/to, the default window, and that monitor_id narrows results. This is beyond what individual parameter descriptions state (e.g., it clarifies the overall filtering model). It doesn't detail the cursor behavior, but the schema does.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the org's incidents') and details what is returned (incident id, affected monitor, severity, times, update phase). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident (which fetches a single incident) and get_incident_metrics (which computes metrics).

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: defaults to open incidents, use state='all' with a from/to window for resolved history, and monitor_id to narrow. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer a sibling (e.g., 'use get_incident for a single incident'), but the scope is well implied. Missing explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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