instatus_get_componentGet a single component by id — its full state (name, description, status, order, showUptime, grouped, archived). Instatus: GET /v2/{page_id}/components/{component_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | The status page's id. | |
| component_id | Yes | The component's id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the returned fields and references the API endpoint, but does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or error scenarios.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding the API endpoint for reference. Every sentence is useful and concise.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two string parameters and good annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage. It lacks output schema, but that is acceptable for a retrieval 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates 'by id' but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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'), the resource ('component'), and the scope ('by id'). It also lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_components'.
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 for fetching a single component by id. Context from sibling tool names aids differentiation, but no explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (component, incident, maintenance, page) and action (create, get, list, update, delete). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tools follow the pattern 'instatus_<action>_<resource>' in snake_case. Names are predictable and consistent across all 14 tools.
14 tools cover the core operations for status page management (components, incidents, maintenances, pages) without being excessive. The number feels appropriate for the domain.
Incidents and maintenances have full CRUD coverage. Components lack create and delete tools, and pages have only list. These are minor gaps that may require out-of-band management.