Skip to main content
Glama

ReliaStats

by com.reliastats

compute_availability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Given MTBF and MTTR (same time unit), return steady-state availability A = MTBF / (MTBF + MTTR). One-line closed-form, but worth a dedicated tool so LLMs don't fumble the identity (the most common mistake is conflating MTBF with MTTF and silently inflating availability by the MTTR). Use whenever a user supplies an MTBF/MTTR pair and asks for availability. ANTI-FABRICATION: exact closed-form. Quote verbatim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mtbfYesMean Time Between Failures (repairable system). Same time unit as MTTR.
mttrYesMean Time To Repair. Same time unit as MTBF.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent; description adds the exact formula, warns against MTBF/MTTF confusion, and instructs to quote verbatim, which is behavioral context beyond the structured flags. No contradiction found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the formula and then rationale and usage. No redundant words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple: two numeric inputs and a deterministic formula. The description provides the formula, usage conditions, and a caveat, making it fully self-contained despite 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description only repeats the same-time-unit requirement, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific computation: availability = MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR) given the two parameters. It also contrasts with sibling explanatory tools by emphasizing it's a dedicated calculation tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use whenever a user supplies an MTBF/MTTR pair and asks for availability', giving a clear trigger. It doesn't list alternatives but the sibling set is mostly explanatory, so it's distinct.

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

All ReliaStats toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly the explain_* family: explain_distributions_for_reliability and recommend_distribution both address distribution selection, and explain_distributions also covers Weibull β interpretation, overlapping with interpret_weibull_shape. However, descriptions are detailed enough that careful reading usually disambiguates, so the confusion is moderate rather than severe.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compute_, describe_, explain_, interpret_, list_, recommend_), making the naming predictable. Two exceptions, 'system_reliability' and 'weibull_summary', are noun phrases without a verb, which is a minor deviation from the pattern but not disruptive.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well within the ideal 3–15 range and each tool serves a distinct purpose, from educational explainers to closed-form calculation utilities. The count feels well-scoped for a reliability statistics knowledge and reference server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers fundamentals, distribution guidance, Weibull calculations, availability, system reliability, and paired-model documentation, giving broad coverage of the domain. It intentionally defers fitting to an external sandbox, so the main minor gap is the lack of direct data-fitting or confidence-interval computation tools, but these can be worked around.

Resources