arthas-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

arthas_tt

Record method invocations in Java processes for later replay. List recorded traces and replay specific invocations by index.

Instructions

Time Tunnel: Record method invocations for replay. Record mode (record=true) is ASYNC.

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": "arthas_tt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`list`	No	List recorded invocations
`count`	No	Number of recordings
`depth`	No	Object traversal depth
`record`	No	Start recording (async)
`replay`	No	Replay by index
`timeout`	No	Timeout in ms
`classPattern`	No	Class name pattern
`methodPattern`	No	Method name pattern

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description only notes that record mode is async, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as how replay works, what list does, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very brief (two sentences), but lacks structure like bullet points or sections. Could be more informative without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain usage patterns (e.g., how to list recordings or replay) or expected results.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions already exist for parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating record is async. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States the tool records method invocations for replay, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arthas_trace or arthas_watch, which also deal with method invocations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only mentions async recording, but lacks context for other parameters like list or replay.

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