Skip to main content
Glama
JaxonDigital

Optimizely DXP MCP Server

by JaxonDigital

get_monitoring_stats

Retrieve real-time monitoring statistics including total monitors, active status, update frequency, and duration to assess system load and activity.

Instructions

📈 Get aggregate statistics for all monitors. REAL-TIME: <1s. Returns total monitor count, active monitors, average update frequency, and average monitor duration. Use to understand monitoring load and system activity. No parameters. Returns monitoring statistics summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main execution handler for the 'get_monitoring_stats' MCP tool. It checks active background database export monitors, formats statistics, and reports system status availability.
    static async getMonitoringStats(_params: MonitoringParams = {}): Promise<any> {
        try {
            // Check for active database export monitors
            const DatabaseSimpleTools = require('./database-simple-tools');
            const activeMonitors: Map<string, BackgroundMonitor> = DatabaseSimpleTools.backgroundMonitors;
    
            const response: string[] = [];
            response.push('## 📊 Monitoring Statistics\n');
    
            if (activeMonitors && activeMonitors.size > 0) {
                response.push(`**Active Database Export Monitors:** ${activeMonitors.size}`);
                for (const [exportId, monitor] of activeMonitors) {
                    const runtime = Math.round((Date.now() - monitor.startTime) / 60000);
                    // Show 13 chars to get past first dash (e.g., "c88fa98f-9d3c...")
                    response.push(`• Export ${exportId.substring(0, 13)}... (${monitor.environment}/${monitor.databaseName}) - Running ${runtime}m`);
                }
            } else {
                response.push('**Active Database Export Monitors:** 0');
            }
    
            response.push('\n**System Status:**');
            response.push('• Background monitoring: ✅ Available');
            response.push('• Auto-download: ✅ Available');
            response.push('• Progress tracking: ✅ Available');
    
            return ResponseBuilder.success(response.join('\n'));
    
        } catch (error: any) {
            return ResponseBuilder.error('MONITORING_ERROR', error.message);
        }
    }
  • Type definition for tool parameters, allowing any key-value pairs.
    interface MonitoringParams {
        [key: string]: any;
    }
  • Tool availability registration in the matrix, marking it available across all hosting types under Monitoring category.
    'get_monitoring_stats': {
        hostingTypes: ['dxp-paas', 'dxp-saas', 'self-hosted', 'unknown'],
        category: 'Monitoring',
        description: 'Get monitoring statistics'
  • Configuration marking the tool as no-cache operation due to real-time data needs.
    'get_monitoring_stats',
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality: it specifies real-time performance ('REAL-TIME: <1s'), details the return values (e.g., total monitor count, active monitors), and clarifies there are no parameters. This covers key behavioral traits like speed and output format, though it could mention error handling or permissions.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key details (real-time performance, return values). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, such as clarifying the lack of parameters and usage context, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it could be more comprehensive by detailing the exact format of the 'monitoring statistics summary' returned, as there is no output schema to rely on, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description reinforces this by stating 'No parameters', adding no extra semantic value but aligning perfectly. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get aggregate statistics') and resources ('for all monitors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' (which likely lists individual monitors) or 'stop_monitoring' (which controls monitoring). It explicitly mentions what it returns, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use to understand monitoring load and system activity'), which helps differentiate it from siblings such as 'get_deployment_status' or 'health_check'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, missing full comparative guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JaxonDigital/optimizely-dxp-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server