Retrieve all status pages for your organization to review current uptime information and incident reports, enabling quick monitoring oversight.
List all status pages for the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 that it lists status pages, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether any permissions are needed, what the response format looks like, or if there is pagination or filtering. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation backup.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 and no annotations, the description is very incomplete for an agent. It does not specify what the returned data looks like (e.g., an array of status page objects), any limitations (e.g., only active pages), or whether pagination is needed. For a simple list tool, some expectation of response structure would be helpful, but it is entirely absent.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none, and it correctly omits any parameter-related information.
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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (status pages), and the scope (for the organization). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_status_page_sections or list_status_page_resources because it specifically targets top-level status pages, and the verb+resource combination 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is obvious that this lists status pages, it does not contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_status_page_sections) or state any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied by the name and resource, but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.