ras_farm_get_performanceRetrieve Parallels RAS farm performance monitor counters, resource utilization thresholds, and monitoring settings to review baselines or check configuration.
Performance monitor configuration and counters for the RAS farm — resource utilisation thresholds and monitoring settings. Use this to review performance baselines or check monitoring configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about data freshness, whether 'counters' are live or historical, cost, or auth requirements — so it is minimum viable rather than additive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource before the usage note. Minor redundancy: 'monitoring settings' in sentence one is echoed by 'check monitoring configuration' in sentence two.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and 'counters' plus 'thresholds and monitoring settings' only gestures at the payload without naming the metrics returned. For a simple zero-param read tool this is adequate but thin.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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?
States a specific resource ('performance monitor configuration and counters for the RAS farm') and narrows scope to resource utilisation thresholds and monitoring settings. It is clearly distinct from the other ras_farm_* and ras_infra_* siblings, though it never names an alternative to route against.
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?
'Use this to review performance baselines or check monitoring configuration' gives an implied when-to-use, but it largely restates the purpose rather than distinguishing it from any sibling. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.