update_status_pageModify a specific status page by ID to change its title, visibility, publication status, branding, authentication, and displayed sections.
Update a specific status page by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the status page (fills `{id}` in /v1/status-pages/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `status_page_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as partial-update semantics, ignored fields, deprecations, or authentication requirements.
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 sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with a complex nested request body. Brevity here does not compensate for the missing operational 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?
The tool has a nested object schema, many attributes, and mutation behavior. Even with annotations and an output schema, the description is not complete enough to explain what can be updated, how the data object should be formed, or key deprecations beyond what the schema already says.
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 reported at 50%, and the description only mentions 'by id'. It does not explain the nested 'data' object, the required JSON:API shape, or the many updatable attributes and their deprecations.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: update a specific status page by id. It is distinguishable from get/list/create status page tools, and from status page template tools by the resource name, though it does not explicitly name siblings or boundaries.
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?
It only says to update by id. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_status_page, update_status_page_template, or other status page tools, and no prerequisites or constraints are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.