Probe a URL's response time by sending multiple requests and measuring latency. Identify slow endpoints with configurable sample counts.
Measure latency for a URL (N requests).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL | |
| samples | No | Samples |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that multiple requests will be made ('N requests') but does not reveal network side effects, timeouts, failure behavior, or what the latency measurement actually reflects.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Everything in the description earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers the core purpose and the only meaningful option (request count). However, there is no output schema or description of what the probe returns, and default sample behavior is not stated, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small interpretive cue by equating 'samples' with 'N requests', but otherwise URL and Samples are only minimally re-described.
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 action ('Measure latency') on a specific resource ('a URL') and signals the probe nature via '(N requests)'. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling names apilatency_status and apilatency_compare, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over apilatency_status or apilatency_compare. The description simply defines the operation and leaves the selection decision entirely to inference from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.