Get a status page's sections by supplying its UID or slug. Sections group pinned checks on the public-facing page.
List sections within a status page. Sections group resources (pinned checks) on the public-facing page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIdentifier | 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core action and adding a brief explanatory clause about what sections are. Every sentence 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?
The description explains the purpose and the concept of sections, which is sufficient for a simple list operation with a single well-described parameter. It does not mention return format, but that is not explicitly required given 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 tool description adds no detail about the pageIdentifier parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-described, the description contributes no additional semantic value.
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') and identifies the exact resource ('sections within a status page'). It further clarifies the domain by explaining that sections group pinned checks, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_status_page_resources and list_status_pages.
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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly indicate when to use it versus listing resources or other related tools. It implies a use case but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.