Retrieve server counters and p50/p95 latency values since boot to assess performance and diagnose issues.
Resumo das métricas do servidor (contadores + latências p50/p95 desde o boot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 full burden and does add useful behavioral context: it returns a summary of counters and p50/p95 latencies since boot, implying a read-only metrics retrieval. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe output shape, but the low-risk nature of the tool makes this acceptable.
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 compact sentence front-loads the purpose and packs in the metric categories and time window without redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, this description provides all essential invocation knowledge: what is returned and its time scope. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the schema. The no-parameter baseline of 4 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 as a server-metrics summary and specifies the included data (counters and p50/p95 latencies) and the since-boot window, which is enough to separate it from ask/ingest/search. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'gets', so it is slightly below the top anchor.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool or when a sibling tool would be preferable. The 'since boot' detail describes the metric window, not a selection rule, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.