SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Manage status page resource

manage_status_page_resource

Destructive

Pin, edit, or unpin a check or check group in a status page section. Use it to control which resources appear publicly and how they are displayed.

Instructions

Pin, edit or unpin a resource (a check or a check group) in a status page section. action=create pins exactly one of checkUid or checkGroupUid and returns the resource. action=update edits one (resourceUid required; omitted fields are kept). action=delete unpins it, returning {deleted, identifier}; the check or group itself is untouched. Read a section's resources with get_status_page include=resources. Annotated destructive and non-idempotent because delete is one of its actions. Every action requires the mcp scope (mcp:read tokens are refused) and at least the user role in the organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	What to do with the resource.
`checkUid`	No	Check UID or slug to pin (for example api-health). Mutually exclusive with checkGroupUid; exactly one is required.
`position`	No	Display position within the section
`publicName`	No	Display name for the public page (defaults to the check or group name)
`explanation`	No	Short explanation rendered under the resource
`resourceUid`	No	Status page resource UID (get_status_page include=resources lists them).
`checkGroupUid`	No	Check group UID or slug to pin as one aggregated component. Mutually exclusive with checkUid; exactly one is required.
`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".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	No	Resource UID.
`deleted`	No	Always true on success.
`checkUid`	No	Pinned check UID, when the resource targets a check.
`position`	No	Display position within the section (smaller renders earlier).
`identifier`	No	The identifier that was deleted.
`publicName`	No	Display name shown on the public page.
`explanation`	No	Short explanation rendered under the resource.
`checkGroupUid`	No	Pinned check group UID, when the resource targets a group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by explaining *why* (delete is one of its actions) and clarifying the blast radius — unpinning leaves the underlying check or group untouched — plus the return shape {deleted, identifier} and the auth refusal mode for mcp:read tokens. That is substantive context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action semantics before the caveats, and no filler. It is on the longer side but each clause carries operational information (return values, scope requirement, role requirement).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter, three-mode mutation tool with an output schema available, the description covers action semantics, exclusivity rules, side effects, return shapes, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema only hints at: exactly one of checkUid/checkGroupUid must be supplied for create, and resourceUid is required for update with omitted fields preserved. That ties parameters to action semantics usefully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb set (pin/edit/unpin) and the exact resource (a check or check group inside a status page section), then enumerates what each of the three action values does. An agent can distinguish this from manage_status_page_section and get_status_page without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the selecting condition for each mode of the single tool (create/update/delete), and explicitly routes the read case to a sibling: 'Read a section's resources with get_status_page include=resources.' Prerequisites are also given (mcp scope, user role).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.