Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aistupidlevel-mcp

aistupidlevel-mcp

by StudioPlatforms
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Recent incidents

get_incidents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recent AI provider and model incidents with severity, affected models, detection and resolution times; filter by provider or unresolved status to check current outages.

Instructions

Recent incidents AI Stupid Level recorded: provider-wide degradations and model-level problems, with severity, the models affected, when each was detected and whether and when it was resolved.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_incidents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many incidents to show, newest first (default 10).
providerNoOnly incidents for this provider: openai, anthropic, google, deepseek, kimi or glm.
open_onlyNoOnly incidents that are not resolved yet (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what is returned (severity, affected models, detection and resolution timestamps), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned attributes. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the long list makes it slightly harder to scan than a more structured presentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description adequately explains what an incident record contains (severity, models, detection time, resolution status). It doesn't need to explain return values further, and the only minor gap is the absence of explicit sorting or pagination context beyond the schema's note that limit defaults to 10 newest-first.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit, provider, and open_only parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (recent incidents) and enumerates the key fields: provider-wide degradations, model-level problems, severity, affected models, detection and resolution times. It clearly distinguishes this from general status or drift tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance is provided. The description merely describes the payload, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for viewing incidents rather than, say, provider status or drift.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools