Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jmeter-mcp-server

jmeter-mcp-server

by IAnjaniKr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

generate_report

Generate an HTML report from JMeter test results. Provide input directory with .jtl or .csv files and output directory to create the report.

Instructions

Generate an HTML report from JMeter test results

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "inputdir": "<inputdir>",
      "outputdir": "<outputdir>"
    },
    "name": "generate_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputdirYesDirectory containing .jtl or .csv results
outputdirYesOutput directory for the HTML report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It doesn't mention fileystem side effects, whether outputdir is overwritten or created, prerequisites such as JMeter availability, or any failure behavior.

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?

One sentence, active voice, no filler; the verb and object lead. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter utility.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For the simple task of generating a report, the schema plus description define required inputs and output. However, the missing usage timing and lack of behavior disclosure leave some context gaps, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with both inputdir and outputdir already explained clearly. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (Generate) and resource (HTML report) and names the input domain (JMeter test results), making its purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from siblings like read_test_file or run_test without ambiguity, as generating a report is a distinct post-processing action.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: it doesn't say to invoke this after run_test, nor when to prefer report generation over read_test_file. The only hint is 'from JMeter test results,' which implies results must exist but leaves the workflow timing to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools