Retrieve time-series data for a server, GPU, or service across selectable ranges to monitor performance and usage.
Time series for a server (scope=host), a GPU (gpu:0) or a service (service:, added up over every server). range is 1h, 6h, 24h, 7d or 30d.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Server id for host and GPU scopes | |
| names | No | Comma-separated series, e.g. cpu,memory,restarts | |
| range | No | 1h | |
| scope | No | host, gpu:<n> or service:<id> |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that service scope is 'added up over every server' — but omits permissions, whether the call is read-only, pagination/downsampling behavior, and the default range.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the scope semantics are front-loaded before the range enumeration. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema exists, but 'time series' adequately signals the return shape and the valid range values are stated. Minor gaps remain: the default range ('1h' lives only in the schema) and whether node is required for service scope are not clarified.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond it by defining what a service-scope series actually is (aggregated across servers), which the schema's 'service:<id>' text does not convey.
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 states a specific resource and return shape ('Time series') and enumerates the three scope variants (host, gpu:0, service:<id>), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_logs or server_status. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied through the scope enumeration — an agent can infer that host scope queries a server and service scope queries a service, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer get_logs or server_status instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed