get_benchmark_methodologyMeasured benchmark results and full reproduction methodology (VectorDBBench through the public API), including dataset, recall, and cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about content (dataset, recall, cost) but no additional behavioral traits, which is acceptable given the 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 sentence and efficiently conveys the core purpose. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('Measured benchmark results' as a noun phrase) but remains concise and scannable.
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 description mentions key included elements (dataset, recall, cost) but does not specify output format or any further context. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on what 'methodology' entails could strengthen completeness, though it is adequate for a simple getter.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 indicates the tool provides benchmark results and reproduction methodology, distinguishing it from siblings like pricing or storage comparison. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Gets'), though the title compensates.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_storage_tiers or get_pricing. The mention of 'through the public API' is not a usage condition.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search, read, API reference, quickstart, formats, benchmarks. The main overlap is between compare_storage_tiers and get_pricing, which both cover storage-tier pricing and could confuse an agent.
The set mostly follows a predictable get_/list_/read_/search_ verb pattern with snake_case throughout. Minor deviation: read_doc and search_docs use navigation verbs instead of get_/list_, but the pattern remains readable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a documentation-focused server. Each tool covers a meaningful documentation need without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full documentation workflow: searching docs, reading docs, quickstart, API operations, pricing, storage tiers, formats, and benchmarks. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.