list_available_metricsDiscover available metrics, categories, and periods for any enterprise domain, enabling targeted KPI analysis and data-driven decisions.
Discovery tool: list metrics, categories, and periods (metrics scoped to domain if given).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool lists metrics, categories, and periods, and that metrics are scoped by domain. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any limits like pagination, though 'list' implies non-mutating behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the most important label ('Discovery tool') and packs all essential information without filler. Every word 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?
For a simple discovery tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is listed and how the domain parameter affects results. It does not detail categories/periods scoping, but the output schema can supply return structure, and nothing critical appears missing for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the only parameter, domain, scopes the metrics returned. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, which only declares domain as an optional string/null.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and names the exact resources ('metrics, categories, and periods'). The phrase 'Discovery tool' immediately distinguishes it from analytical siblings like query_kpis, forecast_metric, and detect_kpi_anomalies, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
The 'Discovery tool' label clearly signals this is for exploring available metrics before performing queries or analyses. It also states the domain scoping condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.