Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mat

mcp-mat

by codelipenghui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mat_oql_query

Execute OQL queries on Java heap dumps to retrieve analysis artifacts. Return results in text, HTML, or CSV format.

Instructions

Execute a single MAT OQL query and return result artifacts.

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": {
      "heap_path": "<heap_path>",
      "oql": "<oql>"
    },
    "name": "mat_oql_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
oqlYes
limitNo
unzipNo
formatNo
xmx_mbNo
heap_pathYes
timeout_secNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it executes a query and returns results, but does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the key action. It is concise and contains no filler, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of OQL, the role of heap_path, or what 'result artifacts' entail, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The single sentence does not explain the purpose or effect of any of the 7 parameters (e.g., heap_path, oql, limit, format).

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool executes a single MAT OQL query and returns result artifacts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools suggest different purposes (e.g., healthcheck, spec), but the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings.

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 like mat_oql_spec or mat_healthcheck. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or recommended use cases.

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