instatus_list_componentsList a status page's components — id, name, description, status, order, showUptime, grouped, archived. The component ids are what you set impact on. Instatus: GET /v2/{page_id}/components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number to fetch (default 1). | |
| page_id | Yes | The status page's id (from list_pages). | |
| per_page | No | Items per page (default 50, max 100). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the specific HTTP GET endpoint and output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Three sentences efficiently deliver the tool's purpose, output fields, and REST endpoint. No wasted words.
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 list tool with well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers the output and purpose. Minor omission: no explicit mention of pagination, though it is implied by the schema's page/per_page parameters.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only lists output fields. 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 the tool lists components of a status page, enumerates returned fields (id, name, etc.), and explains the relevance of component IDs for setting impact. This provides specific verb+resource detail and distinguishes from sibling list tools that list other entities.
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 implies usage context by mentioning component IDs are used for impact, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_component) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions are mentioned.
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 (component, incident, maintenance, page) and action (create, get, list, update, delete). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tools follow the pattern 'instatus_<action>_<resource>' in snake_case. Names are predictable and consistent across all 14 tools.
14 tools cover the core operations for status page management (components, incidents, maintenances, pages) without being excessive. The number feels appropriate for the domain.
Incidents and maintenances have full CRUD coverage. Components lack create and delete tools, and pages have only list. These are minor gaps that may require out-of-band management.