Retrieve a specific status page by its UID or URL-friendly slug, with optional nested sections and resources.
Get a single status page by UID or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| with | No | "sections" to include nested sections and their resources | |
| identifier | Yes | Status page UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "public". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. The verb 'Get' communicates a read operation and 'single status page' sets the scope, but the description does not explain return shape, error behavior, or the effect of the optional 'with' parameter beyond the schema. It is minimal but not misleading.
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 gives the action, resource, and lookup key with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description and input schema are sufficient to call it correctly. The only small gap is that the behavior of the optional 'with' parameter is not reinforced in the description, but the schema covers it.
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 the structured schema already documents both parameters. The description restates that the identifier is a UID or slug but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify when to use the optional 'with' parameter.
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 states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (a single status page), and the lookup key (UID or slug). This clearly differentiates the tool from list_status_pages and the many status-page mutation tools in the sibling set.
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?
The wording implies the tool is for retrieving one status page when an identifier is already known, as opposed to listing all pages. However, it never names list_status_pages as the alternative or states explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the routing implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.