check_apisCheck the current status of multiple APIs in one call — useful when diagnosing a failing app that depends on several services (e.g. ['stripe','openai','aws s3']). Returns each API's status so an agent can tell which dependency is the culprit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apis | Yes | API names or slugs to check, e.g. ['stripe','openai','github']. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns each API's status in a single call, which helps the agent understand the batch result style.
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?
One dense sentence with an illustrative example, no filler. The purpose, usage context, and output are all communicated efficiently with front-loaded meaning.
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 single-parameter tool with robust annotations, this is complete. The agent knows what the tool does, when to use it, how to pass input, and what to expect in return.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'apis' parameter. The description's example reinforces the expected format, but adds little beyond the schema.
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 action ('Check the current status'), the resource ('multiple APIs'), and the batch scope ('in one call'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api_status, which suggests a singular check.
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?
It provides an explicit use case: diagnosing a failing app that depends on several services. It doesn't mention exclusions or point to alternatives like get_api_status for single-API checks, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: listing monitored APIs, checking individual status, checking multiple statuses at once, and retrieving uptime history. The only ambiguity is between check_apis and list_apis, as both return status information, though one targets specific APIs and the other provides a broader directory.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_apis, get_api_status, get_api_uptime, list_apis, list_recent_incidents. The verbs (check, get, list) are used predictably to distinguish action types, and nouns are descriptive.
Five tools is an ideal size for an API monitoring server. Each tool covers a distinct monitoring need without redundancy or bloat, and the scope is tightly focused on status and reliability queries.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain: discovering tracked APIs, checking current status individually or in bulk, retrieving historical uptime, and listing recent incidents. No essential monitoring operation appears to be missing for common agent workflows.