Retrieve in-memory tool-call counts, errors, and latency per tool for the current process; set reset to clear counters after reading.
Return in-memory tool-call metrics (counts, errors, latency).
Aggregated per tool for the life of the process. Pass reset=True
to clear the counters after reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that metrics are in-memory, aggregated per tool, scoped to the life of the process, and that reset=True clears counters after the read. It does not cover authentication or persistence, but those are not central for an in-memory metrics endpoint.
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 definition is short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return structure, though it helpfully names the metric categories. Combined with the reset semantics and process-lifetime scope, the description is complete for a simple metrics tool.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that reset=True clears the counters after reading. It does not mention the default (false), but the semantic meaning is clear.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('in-memory tool-call metrics') with concrete contents (counts, errors, latency). It is clearly distinguishable from the Redmine API sibling tools, which operate on issues, projects, and attachments.
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?
It explains the effect of the reset parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to call it. The intended usage (reading process-level metrics) is strongly implied but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.