Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Utility Matrix

by io.github.helphub369
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change Failure Rate Calculator

change-failure-rate-calculator
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks about change failure rate or DORA CFR. Given total and failed deployments, returns failure rate percentage and DORA tier.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_deploysYestotal deploys used by this deterministic tool.
failed_deploysYesfailed deploys used by this deterministic tool.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
next_stepYes
dora_ratingYes
output_tierYes
total_countYes
failed_countYes
signal_valueYes
next_step_urlYes
remaining_pctYes
why_follow_upYes
interpretationYes
affiliate_contextNo
computation_basisYes
change_failure_rate_pctYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / failed_deploys / description
      Added value: +"failed deploys used by this deterministic tool."
    • addedInput schema / properties / failed_deploys / examples
      Added value: +[
+  1
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / total_deploys / description
      Added value: +"total deploys used by this deterministic tool."
    • addedInput schema / properties / total_deploys / examples
      Added value: +[
+  1
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "affiliate_context": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "affiliate": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "cta_label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "disclosure": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "framing": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "posture": {
+          "enum": [
+            "secondary"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "slot_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "variant": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "affiliate",
+        "cta_label",
+        "disclosure",
+        "framing",
+        "posture",
+        "slot_id",
+        "url",
+        "variant"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "change_failure_rate_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "computation_basis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "dora_rating": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "failed_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "interpretation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "output_tier": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "remaining_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "signal_value": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "why_follow_up": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "change_failure_rate_pct",
+    "computation_basis",
+    "dora_rating",
+    "failed_count",
+    "interpretation",
+    "next_step",
+    "next_step_url",
+    "output_tier",
+    "remaining_pct",
+    "signal_value",
+    "total_count",
+    "why_follow_up"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds only the output shape (percentage + DORA tier), which is already covered by the output schema — a modest addition, not a rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the invocation trigger front-loaded before the behavioral statement. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema for the two params, and an output schema covering returns, the description only needs the trigger and it delivers it. The remaining gap is the lack of routing against the closely overlapping dora-metrics-calculator sibling.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'total and failed deployments' names the two inputs in prose but adds no units, units-of-time, or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('returns failure rate percentage and DORA tier' from deployment counts), and the CFR framing narrows it against generic siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping dora-metrics-calculator, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use when a user asks about change failure rate or DORA CFR' gives a clear, explicit trigger condition. However it names no alternative (e.g., dora-metrics-calculator for the full metric suite) and gives no when-not guidance.

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

All Utility Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources