Retrieve a list of all status pages configured in your Loggy account.
List all status pages
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_status_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full weight. It correctly implies a read-only list operation, but does not disclose potential pagination, authentication requirements, or side effects. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some behavioral traits implicit.
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, concise sentence that fulfills the naming convention. It is front-loaded and free of superfluous content, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness without losing conciseness.
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?
Given zero parameters, a simple list operation, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It could specify the return format (e.g., list of status page objects) to improve agent understanding, but it suffices for a straightforward task.
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?
There are no parameters; baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist. It trivially meets the baseline.
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 'List all status pages' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target other resources (e.g., list_alerts, list_projects). It is specific and 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools suggest distinct resources, the description does not explicitly state the intended use case or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.