get_incidents
Get active incidents across all AI providers. Optionally filter by provider.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Optional: filter by provider |
ai-provider-status
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and scope ('across all AI providers'), but does not mention return format, pagination, error handling, or any other side effects. This is minimal but adequate for a simple read tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary content.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and main filter. However, it lacks explicit alternative guidance and details on response structure, though these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the single optional parameter with enum values and a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating optionality, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('active incidents across all AI providers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_all_status and get_provider_status by focusing on incidents rather than status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only mentions the optional provider filter but does not exclude alternatives or state context for choosing this over get_all_status or get_provider_status.
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.