Retrieve recent incidents and their updates for a public OpenUptime status page, newest first. Provide the page slug to view outage history without credentials.
Recent incidents of a public status page with their updates, newest first. No credentials needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The status page's slug: the last part of its address, /status/<slug> |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description only needs to add what they don't cover. It does: the auth requirement ('No credentials needed'), the ordering guarantee ('newest first'), and that nested updates are included. It stops short of saying how many incidents are returned or whether paging exists.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and ordering stated up front and the auth note appended. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially — it names the payload (incidents with their updates) and ordering, which is enough to call the tool correctly. Result volume/pagination and the exact update fields remain unstated, a minor gap for a read-only endpoint.
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 the single 'slug' parameter is documented in the schema with its format, pattern, and address position. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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 resource ('recent incidents of a public status page with their updates') and a clear ordering rule ('newest first'). The 'public status page' scoping implicitly separates it from sibling list_incidents (the account's own incidents) and status_page_maintenance (maintenance windows), but neither sibling is named 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: 'No credentials needed' signals this is the unauthenticated public-page route, contrasting with the account-scoped incident tools. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer status_page_overview or list_incidents instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.