Monitor running vs waiting inference requests to detect backpressure early. Use this signal to diagnose overload and guide scaling or routing.
[READ] Running vs waiting requests — the leading backpressure signal (any engine).
Args: target: Inference target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the [READ] marker and note that it applies to any engine, but says nothing about return shape or whether values are instantaneous vs averaged.
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?
Two short chunks with the leading role stated first, then minimal arg documentation. No wasted words.
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 single optional-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and param behavior adequately. Only minor gaps (units/interpretation of the depth values) remain.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the single param: "Inference target name from config; omit for the default," clarifying both meaning and default-fallback behavior that the bare string/null schema lacks.
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?
States a specific resource and metric ("Running vs waiting requests") and characterizes its role as "the leading backpressure signal (any engine)", so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling queue_depth, which appears to cover similar ground.
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 leading backpressure signal" implies when the tool is useful (backpressure diagnosis) and "(any engine)" clarifies scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many engine_* diagnostic siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.