Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lattice-mcp

lattice-mcp

by aidenappl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

lattice_get_container_metrics

Get historical CPU, memory, and network metrics for a container. Provide container ID; optionally set data point limit or time range.

Instructions

Get a single container's CPU, memory and network metrics over time

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesContainer ID
limitNoMax data points
rangeNoTime range, e.g. '1h', '6h', '24h'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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. It discloses the type of data returned (CPU, memory, network over time) but fails to mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data retention, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple metrics retrieval tool, but it lacks information on output format, pagination, or error handling. It could provide more context, especially compared to similar sibling tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds 'over time' which aligns with the 'range' parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single container's metrics', and specifies the metric types (CPU, memory, network) over time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lattice_get_fleet_metrics (fleet-level) and lattice_get_worker_metrics (worker-level).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lattice_get_fleet_metrics or lattice_get_worker_metrics. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools