DBJavaGenix

server_metrics

Get runtime metrics for the DBJavaGenix MCP server, including uptime, tool call counts, average latency, and error rates. Lightweight in-process monitoring without external dependencies.

Instructions

返回 DBJavaGenix MCP server 的运行时指标: uptime、每个工具的调用次数 / 平均时延 / 错误率。轻量级 in-process,不依赖 Prometheus。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "server_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reset`	No	查询后重置计数器 (默认 false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is in-process and does not require Prometheus, but it does not describe potential side effects of the 'reset' parameter, output format, or any rate limits. This is a moderate effort but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key information. It is easy to parse, though could be more structured with headers or a clearer separation of functionality.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one optional parameter) and no output schema. The description gives the basic purpose and constraints but omits details like return format and how metrics are structured. It adequately covers the essentials but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema covers the 'reset' parameter with a description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns runtime metrics (uptime, per-tool call count, latency, error rate) and mentions it's lightweight in-process. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_metrics' or 'server_health', which may cause ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states usage context nor when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.