Skip to main content
Glama

identify_performance_bottlenecks

Analyze JMeter test results to detect and report performance bottlenecks, enabling users to optimize system efficiency. Input a JTL file to receive formatted bottleneck analysis.

Instructions

Identify performance bottlenecks in JMeter test results.

Args: jtl_file: Path to the JTL file containing test results

Returns: str: Bottleneck analysis results in a formatted string

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jtl_fileYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the core logic for identifying performance bottlenecks from a JMeter JTL file using TestResultsAnalyzer.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def identify_performance_bottlenecks(jtl_file: str) -> str:
        """Identify performance bottlenecks in JMeter test results.
        
        Args:
            jtl_file: Path to the JTL file containing test results
            
        Returns:
            str: Bottleneck analysis results in a formatted string
        """
        try:
            analyzer = TestResultsAnalyzer()
            
            # Validate file exists
            file_path = Path(jtl_file)
            if not file_path.exists():
                return f"Error: JTL file not found: {jtl_file}"
            
            try:
                # Analyze the file with detailed analysis
                analysis_results = analyzer.analyze_file(file_path, detailed=True)
                
                # Format the results as a string
                result_str = f"Performance Bottleneck Analysis of {jtl_file}:\n\n"
                
                # Add bottleneck information
                detailed_info = analysis_results.get("detailed", {})
                bottlenecks = detailed_info.get("bottlenecks", {})
                
                if not bottlenecks:
                    return f"No bottlenecks identified in {jtl_file}."
                
                # Slow endpoints
                slow_endpoints = bottlenecks.get("slow_endpoints", [])
                if slow_endpoints:
                    result_str += "Slow Endpoints:\n"
                    for endpoint in slow_endpoints:
                        result_str += f"- {endpoint.get('endpoint')}: {endpoint.get('response_time'):.2f} ms "
                        result_str += f"(Severity: {endpoint.get('severity')})\n"
                    result_str += "\n"
                else:
                    result_str += "No slow endpoints identified.\n\n"
                
                # Error-prone endpoints
                error_endpoints = bottlenecks.get("error_prone_endpoints", [])
                if error_endpoints:
                    result_str += "Error-Prone Endpoints:\n"
                    for endpoint in error_endpoints:
                        result_str += f"- {endpoint.get('endpoint')}: {endpoint.get('error_rate'):.2f}% "
                        result_str += f"(Severity: {endpoint.get('severity')})\n"
                    result_str += "\n"
                else:
                    result_str += "No error-prone endpoints identified.\n\n"
                
                # Anomalies
                anomalies = bottlenecks.get("anomalies", [])
                if anomalies:
                    result_str += "Response Time Anomalies:\n"
                    for anomaly in anomalies:
                        result_str += f"- At {anomaly.get('timestamp')}: "
                        result_str += f"Expected {anomaly.get('expected_value'):.2f} ms, "
                        result_str += f"Got {anomaly.get('actual_value'):.2f} ms "
                        result_str += f"({anomaly.get('deviation_percentage'):.2f}% deviation)\n"
                    result_str += "\n"
                else:
                    result_str += "No response time anomalies detected.\n\n"
                
                # Concurrency impact
                concurrency = bottlenecks.get("concurrency_impact", {})
                if concurrency:
                    result_str += "Concurrency Impact:\n"
                    correlation = concurrency.get("correlation", 0)
                    result_str += f"- Correlation between threads and response time: {correlation:.2f}\n"
                    
                    if concurrency.get("has_degradation", False):
                        result_str += f"- Performance degradation detected at {concurrency.get('degradation_threshold')} threads\n"
                    else:
                        result_str += "- No significant performance degradation detected with increasing threads\n"
                    result_str += "\n"
                
                # Add recommendations
                insights = detailed_info.get("insights", {})
                recommendations = insights.get("recommendations", [])
                
                if recommendations:
                    result_str += "Recommendations:\n"
                    for rec in recommendations[:5]:  # Show top 5 recommendations
                        result_str += f"- [{rec.get('priority_level', 'medium').upper()}] {rec.get('recommendation')}\n"
                else:
                    result_str += "No specific recommendations available.\n"
                
                return result_str
                
            except ValueError as e:
                return f"Error analyzing JTL file: {str(e)}"
            
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Error identifying performance bottlenecks: {str(e)}"
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers this function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the input (JTL file) and output (formatted string of bottleneck analysis), but lacks details on how the analysis works (e.g., algorithms used, what constitutes a bottleneck), error handling, performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (performance analysis with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., analysis methodology, error cases) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values beyond a generic 'formatted string.' For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'jtl_file' is a 'Path to the JTL file containing test results,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here the description compensates somewhat by explaining the parameter's role. It doesn't provide format details (e.g., file path conventions, JTL structure), so it partially compensates but not fully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Identify performance bottlenecks in JMeter test results.' It specifies the verb ('identify') and resource ('performance bottlenecks'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_jmeter_results' or 'get_performance_insights' by focusing specifically on bottleneck detection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'generate_visualization' which might also involve performance analysis.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a JTL file from a JMeter test), compare it to siblings like 'analyze_jmeter_results' or 'get_performance_insights', or specify contexts where bottleneck identification is preferred over other analyses. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Related 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/QAInsights/jmeter-mcp-server'

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