Cloud DevOps MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Estimate SLO Error Budget

estimate_slo_error_budget

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate remaining SLO error budget in downtime and optional failed-request terms for a fixed period using target, period length, observed downtime, and request counts.

Instructions

Calculate remaining SLO downtime budget and, when request counts are supplied, remaining failed-request budget for a fixed period. Use this as a deterministic budget calculator; do not use it to fetch monitoring data or forecast reliability. It performs no external calls and changes no service state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`periodDays`	Yes	Length of the SLO measurement period in calendar days.
`requestVolume`	No	Optional total request count for calculating a request-failure error budget.
`failedRequests`	No	Optional failed request count; provide together with requestVolume.
`sloTargetPercent`	Yes	Target service availability percentage for the measurement period, such as 99.9.
`observedDowntimeMinutes`	Yes	Downtime already observed during the measurement period, in minutes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`periodDays`	Yes
`budgetStatus`	Yes
`failedRequests`	No
`sloTargetPercent`	Yes
`allowedFailedRequests`	No
`allowedDowntimeMinutes`	Yes
`observedDowntimeMinutes`	Yes
`remainingFailedRequests`	No
`remainingDowntimeMinutes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.14.0Oct 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / failedRequests / description

Added value: +"Optional failed request count; provide together with requestVolume."

addedInput schema / properties / observedDowntimeMinutes / description

Added value: +"Downtime already observed during the measurement period, in minutes."

addedInput schema / properties / periodDays / description

Added value: +"Length of the SLO measurement period in calendar days."

addedInput schema / properties / requestVolume / description

Added value: +"Optional total request count for calculating a request-failure error budget."

addedInput schema / properties / sloTargetPercent / description

Added value: +"Target service availability percentage for the measurement period, such as 99.9."

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is deterministic, makes no external calls, and mutates no service state, which tells the agent the answer is a pure function of the inputs. It does not discuss precision/rounding or failure modes of the calculation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary computation, then scope limits, then purity guarantees. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a pure arithmetic tool with an output schema, complete parameter documentation and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is computed, the optional branch, and the guarantee that nothing external happens.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the relationship the schema only hints at: the request-failure budget is produced only when request counts are supplied, tying requestVolume and failedRequests together as a pair. It adds no units or format detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (remaining SLO downtime budget / failed-request budget) with the exact condition that activates the second computation. Nothing about it is ambiguous against the review_*/assess_* siblings, which all operate on artifacts rather than performing arithmetic on supplied numbers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames the tool as a deterministic calculator and names two things it must NOT be used for (fetching monitoring data, forecasting reliability). That is a clear use/do-not-use boundary, which is exactly what an agent needs to route away from this tool when the user wants live telemetry.

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

Deploy Server