get_componentRetrieve a component's description, status, group, and uptime settings from a status page using its page and component IDs. Use to check component health and configuration.
Get one component with its description, status, group and uptime settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | Status page ID (from list_status_pages) | |
| componentId | Yes | Component ID (from list_components) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value by enumerating what is returned (description, status, group, uptime settings), useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior, missing components, or permissions.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields listed compactly. No filler or redundancy.
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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the response and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete; only failure/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for this tool class.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including provenance hints (from list_status_pages, from list_components), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the component is already identified; 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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (component), and the phrase 'one component' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_components. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly names list_components as its collection counterpart the way a top-tier definition would.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching a single already-known component (which is why both pageId and componentId are required), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.