Skip to main content
Glama

Uptimepage

by dev.uptimepage

List notification channels

list_notification_channels
Read-only

The org's notification channels: id, operator-set name, kind (email, slack, telegram, webhook, and so on), and whether the channel is enabled. Two flags say a channel is not working even where it reads as ready: awaiting_verification for an email address nobody confirmed, and not_delivering for an enabled channel whose recent alerts all failed to arrive. auto_bind_tags is the channel's tag rule: it also pages any monitor carrying one of those tags, so a monitor with no binding can still be covered. Channel settings are withheld, since they hold webhook URLs and bot tokens. Channels are created in the Uptimepage app, not here. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the two flags (awaiting_verification, not_delivering) that indicate a channel may not work, the auto_bind_tags rule for pages, the withholding of settings for security, and that channels are created in the app. This far exceeds the annotation's coverage.

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 a single paragraph but every sentence adds a specific behavioral or field detail. No fluff or redundancy; it is dense yet efficient.

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?

The description covers all relevant output aspects: field enumeration, unusual status flags, security redaction, and creation context. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is fully complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete, so the description has no obligation to explain params. It instead adds helpful field semantics (e.g., 'auto_bind_tags' behavior), which is a bonus beyond the baseline.

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 lists the org's notification channels and enumerates key fields (id, name, kind, enabled), distinguishing it from any sibling resource. The verb 'list' and resource are explicit, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The unique resource (notification channels) makes it the obvious choice among siblings, but the description does not contrast it with other list tools or state when not to use it.

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