get_status_pageMachine-readable state of any public Watchpup status page by slug: per-monitor status, uptime, incidents last 30d. No API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Status page slug (the part after /s/) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond those: it specifies the exact data returned (per-monitor status, uptime, incidents last 30d) and the auth requirement (no API key). This is additional transparency beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, efficiently packed sentence. It front-loads the core function ('Machine-readable state of any public Watchpup status page') and then lists the returned categories and auth note without any wasted 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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it names the endpoint by slug, the data categories, and the public auth requirement. It lacks details on error behavior or exact formatting, but the absence of an output schema is compensated by the listed return contents.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'slug' parameter, describing it as 'Status page slug (the part after /s/)'. The description repeats this ('by slug') without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool reads machine-readable state of a public status page by slug, listing per-monitor status, uptime, and incidents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_monitor and list_monitors by targeting a public status page rather than individual monitors or lists.
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 notes 'No API key needed', providing an important usage criterion for public pages. It implies use when you need status page data by slug, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_account or list_incidents.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. There is no overlap between monitor lifecycle tools (create, get, update, delete, list), incident tools (list, ack, note), or utility tools (check_url, get_account, get_status_page). The descriptions explicitly differentiate check_url from create_monitor, eliminating confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: ack_incident, add_incident_note, check_url, create_monitor, delete_monitor, get_account, get_monitor, get_status_page, list_channels, list_incidents, list_monitors, update_monitor. No mixed conventions or inconsistent verb forms exist.
12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a monitoring service. Each tool serves a purposeful function without redundancy, covering monitor management, incident handling, and account/status information.
Monitor lifecycle is complete with CRUD plus list. Incidents have list, acknowledge, and note tools, which covers the core incident workflow. Minor gaps include no channel management (only list_channels) and no way to discover status pages (get_status_page requires a known slug), but these are peripheral and workable for most use cases.