Retrieve status pages for the current OpenUptime project to inspect service health; omit project or workspace IDs to use defaults.
List the status pages of the current project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no pagination behavior, result ordering, or volume caveats.
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 with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the scope qualifier.
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 low-complexity read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about result size or pagination.
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 both optional parameters (project, workspace) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the 'omit to use default' fallback. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ("List the status pages") with a scope qualifier ("of the current project"). An agent can distinguish this from create_status_page/update_status_page by the 'list' verb, though the description 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 implied by the 'list' verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools (create_status_page, update_status_page) or of other list_* tools it might be confused with. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.