termix_metrics_get_historical_metrics_hostFetch historical metrics for a host by ID, specifying a time range or duration to analyze past performance and resource usage.
Get historical metrics for a host
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| range | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as time range handling, defaults for 'from'/'to'/'range', or what data is returned. Since the description provides no extra transparency and does not contradict annotations, it earns a low score.
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 description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it only repeats the tool's name. The structure is minimal but lacks substance, similar to the 'Process' example.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters, expected response shape, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without additional external knowledge.
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%, meaning the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanation. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (id, to, from, range) or their semantics, such as how 'from'/'to' interact with 'range' or what format the date strings expect. This is a severe gap.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for historical data while termix_metrics_get_host_metrics is for current metrics, nor does it note any conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left without any routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.