Skip to main content
Glama

devops-status-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Devops Status Check

devops_status_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current health status for one or more vendors. Accepts registered vendor slugs (e.g., "github", "aws", "gcp", "gitlab") or raw Atlassian Statuspage base URLs. Registry entries are served by each vendor's native status API (Statuspage, Status.io, Slack, AWS Health, Google Cloud Service Health, Firehydrant) and normalized to one shape. Returns per-vendor operational indicator (none = all clear, minor, major, critical, maintenance = scheduled window), degraded components, and active incidents. Use mode: "detailed" for component lists and maintenance windows, narrowed with component_filter and bounded by component_limit. Batch-friendly — pass a list to check your full stack in one call; a vendor that cannot be resolved or reached is reported in its own result row, so one bad entry never discards the rest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNosummary: indicator + degraded components + active incidents only. detailed: adds the component list and scheduled maintenance windows.summary
vendorsYesVendor slugs from the built-in registry (e.g., "github", "aws") or raw Atlassian Statuspage base URLs (non-Statuspage backends are supported via registry slugs only). Mix freely. Use devops_list_vendors to discover available slugs.
component_limitNoMaximum components returned per vendor in detailed mode (1-500). Large status pages publish hundreds of components, so a multi-vendor batch at a high limit returns a very large response; narrow with component_filter instead where possible.
component_filterNoCase-insensitive substring matched against component names in detailed mode (e.g., "api" to check just the API components). Applied before component_limit, so it is the way to reach a component that the cap would otherwise omit. Ignored in summary mode.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capNoThe per-vendor component_limit that was applied. Present only when truncated.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
shownNoComponents returned across all vendors. Present only when truncated.
noticeNoPlain-language explanation of the capped component lists — how many components were omitted and how to reach them (component_filter to target one, component_limit to raise the cap). Present only when truncated.
resultsNoPer-vendor status results in the same order as the input vendors list.
summaryNoAggregate health counts across all checked vendors. Buckets partition the batch: operational + degraded + down + maintenance + unavailable = total.
truncatedNoTrue when at least one vendor's component list was capped at component_limit. Absent when nothing was capped.
totalCountNoComponents matching component_filter across all vendors before the cap. Present only when truncated.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: normalization across different vendor APIs, per-vendor result rows with per-vendor operational indicators, and that one unreachable vendor never discards the rest. It also explains mode-dependent behavior and component filtering. This goes well beyond the annotations, though it omits details like caching or rate limits, which are minor given the read-only, idempotent nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long (several sentences) but each sentence contributes useful information: purpose, input formats, normalization, output shape, mode specifics, filtering, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then flows to operational details. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified given the tool's complexity and the value added per sentence.

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 essential aspects for correct use: input types (slugs/URLs), supported backends, normalizing behavior, output elements (indicator, degraded components, incidents), mode differences, filter and limit behavior, batch resilience, and discovery via devops_list_vendors. The output schema is provided, so the return structure is fully documented elsewhere. For a tool with four parameters and multiple modes, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between mode, component_filter, and component_limit (e.g., filter applied before limit), and by giving examples of vendor slugs. It also clarifies that raw Statuspage URLs are supported only for Atlassian backends and that other backends require registry slugs. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current health status for one or more vendors'), and clarifies the scope with vendor slugs or Statuspage URLs. It distinguishes from siblings like devops_get_incidents by focusing on overall health, and references devops_list_vendors for slug discovery. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it explains the two modes, how filtering/limits work, and notes the batch-friendly nature with error resilience. It references devops_list_vendors as an alternative for discovering slugs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like devops_get_incidents or devops_watch_stack, so an agent might miss why this is the right choice for a quick status check versus a deeper incident watch. That nuance 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 devops-status-mcp-server 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 aspect of DevOps status monitoring: certificate health, DNS resolution, incident history, vendor discovery, current status, action suggestions, and stack monitoring. Even the overlapping status_check and watch_stack have clear differences (arbitrary targets vs saved stacks). No ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the devops_ prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_certs, check_dns, get_incidents, list_vendors, suggest_action, watch_stack). The exception is devops_status_check, which inverts to noun_verb, but it's still readable and doesn't cause confusion.

Tool Count5/5

7 tools is well within the 3-15 sweet spot for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a necessary function with no redundancy or bloat, making the surface area easy to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle of DevOps status monitoring: discovery, health checks, incident lookup, certificate and DNS checks, and actionable recommendations. Minor gaps like a dedicated tool for viewing a single incident in isolation are mitigated by filtering in get_incidents. The stack management is a bonus that adds convenience.

Resources