Measure pipeline performance by retrieving deployment frequency, failure rate, and lead time metrics over a configurable period, with optional filtering for a specific pipeline.
Get deployment frequency, failure rate, and lead time metrics for a pipeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to analyse (default 30) | |
| pipeline_sys_id | No | Pipeline sys_id (optional — all pipelines if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific metrics returned but no additional behavioral context such as time-window aggregation, how metrics are computed, or pagination. It does not conflict with annotations, but adds limited value beyond them.
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?
A single sentence that is efficient and direct. Every word contributes meaning—no filler, no redundancy. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 description specifies the output (three metrics) and the resource (pipeline), which is adequate for a simple read-only tool. No output schema exists, but the metric names provide a reasonable expectation. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the time window, but the schema supplies the 'days' parameter. Overall sufficient.
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%: both 'days' and 'pipeline_sys_id' have descriptive text, so the schema carries the burden. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metrics for a pipeline'), and explicitly names the three metric types (deployment frequency, failure rate, lead time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_devops_pipeline (which retrieves pipeline details) and list_deployments (which lists individual deployments).
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 description implies when to use this tool: when aggregated pipeline metrics are needed. It offers clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. It does not state 'use this instead of X' like the high example, but the resource and metrics are self-evident, making the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.