Retrieve all checks pinned to a status page section by providing the page UID and section UID.
List resources (checks pinned to a section) within a status page section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIdentifier | Yes | Status page UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "public". | |
| sectionIdentifier | Yes | Status page section UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "api". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no indication of read-only status, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a list operation, the absence of any safety or behavior notes leaves the agent without critical context. This is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and where. The parameter requirements are already covered by the schema. While it could mention that both identifiers are required, that is implicit in the schema. The description is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), explaining that they accept a UID or URL-friendly slug. The tool description adds no additional parameter details. Per the rule, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), specifies the resource ('resources'), and clarifies the scope ('within a status page section'). It also defines resources as 'checks pinned to a section,' which distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_checks or list_status_page_sections. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need the resources of a particular status page section. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it from related list operations. No exclusions are given, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.