SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Manage status page section

manage_status_page_section

Destructive

Create, update, or delete status page sections, including pinned resources on delete, to organize status updates by service or component.

Instructions

Create, update or delete a section of a status page. action=create adds a section (name and slug required) and returns it. action=update edits one (sectionIdentifier required; omitted fields are kept) and returns it. action=delete permanently removes a section and every resource pinned in it, returning {deleted, identifier}. Read a page's sections with get_status_page include=sections. 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
`name`	No	Section display name (required), e.g. "API services".
`slug`	No	URL-friendly slug (required, unique within the page), e.g. "api".
`action`	Yes	What to do with the section.
`position`	No	Display position within the page (smaller renders earlier).
`pageIdentifier`	Yes	Status page UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "public".
`sectionIdentifier`	No	Status page section UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "api".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	No	Section UID.
`name`	No	Section display name.
`slug`	No	URL-friendly slug, unique within the page.
`deleted`	No	Always true on success.
`position`	No	Display position (smaller renders earlier).
`selector`	No	Dynamic membership rule; absent on hand-curated sections.
`identifier`	No	The identifier that was deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false, but the description explains why (delete is one of the actions) and adds context annotations cannot: delete also removes every resource pinned in the section, update preserves omitted fields, and the exact return shapes. Auth requirements (scope and role) are disclosed as well.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded purpose followed by one sentence per action, then sibling routing, annotation rationale, and prerequisites. Dense but every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler.

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 multi-action mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the action semantics, conditional inputs, destructive side effects, sibling routing, and auth prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 field meanings are already documented, but the description adds conditional requirements the schema cannot express — name/slug required only for create, sectionIdentifier only for update. It does not add format or example detail beyond what the schema provides, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Names the resource (status page section) and breaks the verb into its three concrete actions, specifying exactly what each produces. It also distinguishes itself from get_status_page, telling the agent this is the mutation counterpart to that read tool.

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?

Spells out the trigger condition for each action (create requires name/slug, update requires sectionIdentifier and keeps omitted fields, delete removes pinned resources) and names the alternative for reading. It further states the access conditions — mcp scope required, mcp:read refused, at least user role — so the agent can pre-check eligibility.

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