The F5 Cloud Status MCP Server lets you monitor and query the operational status of F5 Distributed Cloud services, including incidents, components, and maintenance windows.
Get Overall Status: Retrieve the current overall health and operational state of F5 Cloud services.
List Components: View all service components (e.g., Distributed Cloud Services, XC App Stack) with their current status, filterable by group or status level (none, minor, major, critical).
Get Component Details: Look up detailed information about a specific component by ID or name.
View Incidents: Fetch current and recent incidents (up to 90 days back), filterable by impact level, status (investigating, identified, monitoring, resolved, postmortem), date range, or show only unresolved incidents.
Check Maintenance Windows: See scheduled, active, and upcoming maintenance windows, filterable by status (scheduled, in_progress, verifying, completed) or limited to active/upcoming only.
Search: Perform keyword or pattern-based searches across components, incidents, and maintenance records.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@F5 Cloud Status MCP Server are there any active incidents affecting F5 Cloud services?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for monitoring F5 Distributed Cloud service status, components, incidents, and maintenance.
{
"mcpServers": {
"f5xc-cloudstatus": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@robinmordasiewicz/f5xc-cloudstatus-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}Config file locations:
Claude Desktop: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) | %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows)
Claude Code: claude mcp add f5xc-cloudstatus npx @robinmordasiewicz/f5xc-cloudstatus-mcp@latest
VS Code: code --add-mcp '{"name":"f5xc-cloudstatus","command":"npx","args":["@robinmordasiewicz/f5xc-cloudstatus-mcp@latest"]}'
Cursor: .cursor/mcp.json
Windsurf: Plugins → Search "F5 Cloud Status" → Install
Related MCP server: F5 MCP Server
Tool | Description |
| Current overall status |
| All service components with status |
| Specific component details |
| Current and recent incidents |
| Scheduled maintenance windows |
| Search components, incidents, maintenance |
What is the current status of F5 Cloud services?
Are there any active incidents?
Show me components that are degraded
What maintenance is scheduled?
Search for API GatewayThe MCP server uses browser instance pooling for 40-60% faster scraping performance. Browser instances are reused across operations instead of creating new ones each time.
Configuration:
SCRAPER_POOLING_ENABLED=true - Enable/disable pooling (default: true)
SCRAPER_POOLING_MIN_SIZE=1 - Minimum browsers in pool (default: 1)
SCRAPER_POOLING_MAX_SIZE=3 - Maximum browsers in pool (default: 3)
SCRAPER_POOLING_IDLE_TIMEOUT=60000 - Close idle browsers after ms (default: 60s)
SCRAPER_POOLING_ACQUIRE_TIMEOUT=10000 - Browser acquisition timeout (default: 10s)
SCRAPER_POOLING_HEALTH_CHECK_INTERVAL=30000 - Health check frequency (default: 30s)
SCRAPER_POOLING_ENABLE_METRICS=true - Track performance metrics (default: true)
Performance Gains:
Single scrape: ~50% faster (2500ms → 1200ms)
Parallel scrapes: ~51% faster (8300ms → 4100ms)
Cache hit rate: >80% after warmup
Resource Usage:
Each browser: ~150MB memory
Max pool (3 browsers): ~450MB memory
Idle cleanup: Automatic after 60s
Disable if needed:
SCRAPER_POOLING_ENABLED=falseMIT
Get detailed information about a specific F5 Cloud service component by ID or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Component ID | |
| name | No | Component name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively without structured guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters 'id' and 'name' documented in the schema. The description adds that these are used to retrieve a 'specific' component, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples, exclusivity, or precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific F5 Cloud service component', specifying it can be retrieved by 'ID or name'. It distinguishes from sibling 'f5-status-get-components' (plural) by focusing on a single component, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'f5-status-get-overall'.
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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'f5-status-get-components' for multiple components, 'f5-status-search' for broader queries, or other siblings for different data types like incidents or maintenance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all F5 Cloud service components with their current operational status, organized by category (Distributed Cloud Services, XC App Stack, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter components by status | |
| group | No | Filter components by group name |
Does 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 describes a read operation ('Get') and mentions organization by category, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.
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 core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly mentioning filtering options). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 the tool's complexity (read-only, 2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases) and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the description and schema alone, which leaves gaps in operational understanding.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('status' and 'group') with descriptions and an enum for 'status'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering (via 'organized by category'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value like examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get all F5 Cloud service components with their current operational status, organized by category'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('F5 Cloud service components'), and scope ('all'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'f5-status-get-component' (singular) and 'f5-status-get-overall' (summary). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'f5-status-search', which might also retrieve components, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'f5-status-get-component' (for single components), 'f5-status-get-overall' (for summary status), or 'f5-status-search' (for filtered searches). There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current and recent incidents affecting F5 Cloud services, including status updates and affected components
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter incidents by status | |
| impact | No | Filter incidents by impact level | |
| days | No | Get incidents from the last N days (default: 7) | |
| unresolved_only | No | Only return unresolved incidents (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current and recent incidents' and filtering capabilities, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means beyond the 'days' parameter. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
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 core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances like how 'current and recent' interacts with the 'days' parameter. For a tool with this level of detail in the schema, the description should provide more contextual guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering (e.g., 'including status updates' loosely relates to the 'status' parameter). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current and recent incidents affecting F5 Cloud services'), with additional context about what information is included ('status updates and affected components'). It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., 'get-component' or 'get-overall') by focusing on incidents, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search' which might overlap.
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 like 'f5-status-search' or other sibling tools. The description implies it's for incidents, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among the available options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get scheduled, active, and upcoming maintenance windows for F5 Cloud services
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter maintenance by status | |
| active_only | No | Only return active maintenance windows (default: false) | |
| upcoming_only | No | Only return upcoming maintenance windows (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool retrieves but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no structured output information. It fails to address behavioral traits, response details, or usage context, which are essential for the agent to operate effectively in a real-world scenario.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters with enums and defaults. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., 'active_only' vs. 'upcoming_only'). Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('scheduled, active, and upcoming maintenance windows for F5 Cloud services'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'f5-status-get-incidents' or 'f5-status-search', which might also retrieve status-related information, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools listed. It lacks explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current overall status of F5 Cloud services including operational state and service health indicator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does 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 states the tool retrieves status information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 core action ('Get the current overall status') and specifies the scope ('of F5 Cloud services') and details ('including operational state and service health indicator'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for a basic status check. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what to expect from the tool.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current overall status of F5 Cloud services'), including what information it retrieves ('operational state and service health indicator'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'overall' status rather than component-specific or incident-related data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage context by specifying 'overall status' versus more detailed components or incidents, suggesting this tool is for high-level health checks. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'f5-status-get-components' or 'f5-status-get-incidents', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search F5 Cloud status information by keyword or pattern, including components, incidents, and maintenance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query or pattern | |
| type | No | Type of entity to search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching 'F5 Cloud status information' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., list of matches). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with no structured safety or operational hints.
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 core purpose ('Search F5 Cloud status information') and adds necessary scope details. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what format results come in), error conditions, or operational constraints. While the purpose is clear, the behavioral and output gaps make it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (query and type with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'keyword or pattern' and listing entity types, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Search'), target resource ('F5 Cloud status information'), and scope ('by keyword or pattern, including components, incidents, and maintenance'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'f5-status-get-component' (singular) and 'f5-status-get-overall' (aggregate) by emphasizing search functionality across multiple entity types.
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 implies usage context for keyword-based searching across status entities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'f5-status-get-incidents' (which might fetch all incidents without search). It provides clear scope but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0f5-status-get-componentf5-status-get-componentsf5-status-get-incidentsf5-status-get-maintenancef5-status-get-overallf5-status-searchEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: get-component targets a specific item, get-components lists all, get-incidents focuses on incidents, get-maintenance on maintenance, get-overall on overall status, and search enables keyword queries. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'f5-status-', such as 'f5-status-get-component' and 'f5-status-search'. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, with no deviations in style or convention.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for monitoring F5 Cloud status, covering key aspects like components, incidents, maintenance, overall status, and search. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tool set provides complete coverage for status monitoring, including CRUD-like operations (get/list for components, incidents, maintenance) and additional utilities (overall status and search). There are no obvious gaps, enabling agents to handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Check real-time uptime and incident status for 275+ APIs and cloud services.
Live status for 172 cloud and SaaS vendors from their official feeds. Is it you, or is it them?
Gain visibility into the performance, availability, and health of your apps and infrastructure.
Is GitHub, npm, Cloudflare or your AI provider down right now? 20 status pages, one call.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/robinmordasiewicz/f5xc-cloudstatus-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
