get_provider_status
Get real-time status for a single AI provider.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider to check |
ai-provider-status
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or what the status response contains. For a read-only tool this is minimal but not misleading.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero wasted words. Achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.
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?
Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). The description clearly states the action and scope, but the absence of any mention of return format or additional context leaves a small gap. Overall adequate for a status-check tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the provider param is fully described with an enum. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'real-time status' for 'a single AI provider'. The qualifier 'single' directly distinguishes it from sibling get_all_status, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use it—for one provider—and contrasts with siblings (get_all_status, get_incidents). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks explicit guidance but provides clear context.
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.