list_on_callList on-call calendars/schedules and the users currently on call for escalation. Useful to see who gets paged. Uptime API: GET /api/v2/on-calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default 1). | |
| per_page | No | Results per page. | |
| team_name | No | Filter by team name (only when using a global API token). |
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?
The description adds the API endpoint and the purpose of seeing who gets paged. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or auth requirements beyond what is in the schema.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides usage context.
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?
Given no output schema, the description provides the core action and mentions the API endpoint. It covers the purpose and usage context well, though it could briefly mention pagination implied by parameters. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple list tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond these; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states it lists on-call calendars/schedules and current on-call users, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_incidents or list_monitors by focusing on on-call schedules.
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 explicitly mentions it is useful to see who gets paged, providing context for when to use it. It does not specify when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: monitors, heartbeats, incidents, on-call schedules, and status pages are clearly separated. Incident actions (list, get, acknowledge, resolve) are unambiguous with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_monitors, get_incident, acknowledge_incident). The naming is predictable and easy to follow.
With 9 tools covering the primary aspects of uptime monitoring and incident management, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set covers reading and incident lifecycle management well, but lacks any create/update/delete operations for monitors, heartbeats, or status pages. This is a notable gap for a comprehensive monitoring platform, though the core incident workflow is covered.