list_down_apisEverything the most recent monitor run found down or degraded, across all categories. Returns an empty list when the monitor snapshot is missing or stale — an empty list is therefore not proof that everything is healthy; check monitorLastRun.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a key behavior: an empty list can indicate a missing or stale snapshot, not health, and directs users to check monitorLastRun. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose, followed by a necessary caveat. Every clause earns its place and no redundant information is present.
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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description explains the data source (monitor run), the scope (all categories), and the critical caveat about empty lists and stale snapshots. This is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing to compensate for. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists everything found down or degraded in the most recent monitor run, across all categories. The verb is implied by the name, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the monitor-run scope.
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?
The description provides context about the most recent monitor run and warns about empty lists when the snapshot is stale, which helps interpret results. However, it does not explicitly direct users to alternatives or state when to use this tool over list_apis or get_api_status.
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.