io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

slow_ops

Read-only

Decode Ceph slow-request health checks to find the OSD with blocked or slow requests when clients report stalls.

Instructions

[READ] Blocked/slow requests per OSD (decodes the SLOW_OPS health check).

Use this to find the OSD sitting on blocked ops when clients report stalls.

Args: target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.

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": "slow_ops"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.11.5Sep 19, 2026
Removedv0.3.0Jul 17, 2026
First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, so the "[READ]" tag is largely redundant. The description does add real context by disclosing that output is decoded from the SLOW_OPS health check rather than raw Ceph output, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or result shape.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the read tag and one-line purpose come first, the usage trigger second, and the lone parameter is documented in a short Args block. Every sentence 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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and parameter behavior adequately. It would be fully complete if it hinted at what the returned per-OSD data looks like, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: "target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default" explains both the meaning and the optional/default behavior. It could specify accepted target formats or where config names come from, but the core semantics are covered.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list blocked/slow requests per OSD) and grounds it in a named data source (the SLOW_OPS health check), which distinguishes it from related diagnostics like pg_dump_stuck. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 this to find the OSD sitting on blocked ops when clients report stalls" gives explicit trigger context for invoking the tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternative tools (e.g. pg_dump_stuck, osd_perf) for adjacent stall scenarios.

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