Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iran-cloud-status-mcp

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Reliability over a period

cs_reliability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts incidents and sums incident time per provider over a lookback window to compare reliability and identify the most affected components.

Instructions

Count incidents and add up incident time per provider over the last days, with the most affected components.

Use it to compare reliability. Overlapping incidents count once; incident_time_percent is the window share with an incident open, not uptime (no provider publishes uptime).

Tool call template

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": "cs_reliability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back days.
queryNoOnly incidents whose title or components contain this text.
providerNoOne provider; leave out for all that support this tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: overlapping incidents are deduplicated, and incident_time_percent is the share of the window with an incident open rather than uptime, with the caveat that no provider publishes uptime. It stops short of describing the response shape or the meaning of "most affected components" (how many, ranked by what).

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a usage cue and metric caveats. No wasted sentences; the only slight slack is the trailing "with the most affected components" phrase, which dangles without saying how many or ranked by what.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With three optional parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the essential aggregation semantics and the key metric definition. It is not fully complete because the return structure and the composition of the "most affected components" list are left unexplained despite there being no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the days window and per-provider grouping but says nothing about the query filter or what happens when provider is omitted (all supporting providers). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb pair and resource: counts incidents and sums incident time per provider over a look-back window, plus most affected components. This clearly distinguishes an aggregation tool from listing tools like cs_incidents, though it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Use it to compare reliability" gives a contextual cue for when this tool is the right pick, but there are no exclusions and no named alternative (e.g. cs_incidents for raw incident lists, cs_components for per-component drill-down). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools