toolbox_metrics_snapshotReturn content-free aggregate request and latency metrics to monitor MCP server performance without exposing sensitive request data.
Return content-free aggregate request and latency metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the metrics are 'content-free' aggregates, which tells the agent no per-request payloads or sensitive content are exposed. It does not disclose the aggregation window, sampling, or refresh behavior.
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 with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the two things measured. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The one remaining gap is the scope of the aggregate (time window or granularity), which an agent would need to interpret the numbers, though that is plausibly captured by the output schema.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('aggregate request and latency metrics'), and the 'content-free' qualifier separates it from payload-returning siblings like filesystem_read_text_file. It does not explicitly position itself against the closest sibling, toolbox_server_status, but the resource is distinct enough to identify the tool.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as toolbox_server_status. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'metrics'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.