get_all_status
Get real-time status for all AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google AI). Returns overall health, component status and active incidents.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ai-provider-status
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return contents (overall health, component status, active incidents) and claims 'real-time', but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. However, for a status tool, this is reasonably transparent given the low operational risk.
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?
Two sentences deliver the purpose and return contents without wasted words. The key action and scope are front-loaded in the first clause.
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?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema). The description explains what it returns, making it adequately complete for an aggregate status check. It could mention relation to siblings, but that is not essential for invoking the tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to document.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'real-time status for all AI providers', explicitly listing providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google AI). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_provider_status (likely single-provider) and get_incidents (focused on incidents only).
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?
The description implies aggregate use ('all AI providers') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_incidents or get_provider_status. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are largely distinct: get_all_status covers all providers, get_provider_status targets a single provider, and get_incidents lists incidents. However, there is some overlap as get_all_status also includes active incidents, which could cause an agent to choose between it and get_incidents for incident-only queries.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: get_all_status, get_provider_status, get_incidents. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the domain of checking AI provider status. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and the count feels appropriate for a focused utility server.
Completeness4/5
The core operations of checking overall status, single-provider status, and incidents are covered. The only minor gap is that there is no explicit way to get component-level status for a single provider without getting the full status, but this is a minor limitation.