Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mat

mcp-mat

by codelipenghui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mat_parse_report

Execute predefined reports on Java heap dumps without a GUI and retrieve generated artifacts.

Instructions

Run a predefined MAT report headlessly and return generated 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>",
      "report_id": "<report_id>"
    },
    "name": "mat_parse_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmx_mbNo
optionsNo
heap_pathYes
report_idYes
timeout_secNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'run headlessly' but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, resource consumption, or what 'artifacts' are returned. Minimal behavioral context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence, no redundancy. However, it is under-specified; conciseness is not valued over informativeness. Adequate but not optimal.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has 5 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. Description fails to explain return value format, parameter meanings, or preconditions. Severely incomplete for this complexity level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and description provides no parameter information. The five parameters (heap_path, report_id, xmx_mb, options, timeout_sec) are completely unexplained. Baseline for low coverage requires compensation, which is absent.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Run' and resource 'predefined MAT report', mentions 'headlessly' and 'return generated artifacts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mat_oql_query and mat_healthcheck, but could be more explicit about what a MAT report is.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use. Agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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