list_componentsRetrieve all components on a status page with their current status and group to monitor service health or diagnose outages.
List the components (services) shown on a status page with their current status and group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| pageId | Yes | Status page ID (from list_status_pages) | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, 1-100 (default 50) |
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 adds essentially nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior (even though page/per_page exist), no rate limits, no note on what happens with an invalid or unknown pageId.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its scope (a status page), and the payload fields returned. Nothing dangles and nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does mention the key returned fields (current status and group), which is the right compensation. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for a three-parameter list tool, leaving a minor gap.
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%, so page, pageId, and per_page are all documented in the schema (including defaults and ranges), making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as the format of pageId or how pagination interacts with the result set.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (components), and helpfully clarifies that components mean services and that results include current status and group. It is distinguishable from get_component (singular fetch) and set_component_status (mutation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 — list the components of a status page. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_component for a single service or over get_status_overview, and no prerequisites beyond the pageId requirement visible in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.