Skip to main content
Glama
dave1362

RCA-MCP Connector

rca_pyrca_epsilon_diagnosis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify anomalous metrics behind an SLI anomaly by comparing normal versus incident data windows with z-score thresholding, narrowing root cause candidates for deeper causal analysis.

Instructions

[Adapted from Salesforce PyRCA — BSD-3-Clause] Identify anomalous metrics contributing to a Service Level Indicator (SLI) anomaly by comparing metric distributions in normal vs. incident windows.

Uses z-score thresholding: metrics with |z| > epsilon in the incident window relative to the normal baseline are flagged as root cause candidates.

Best used as a FIRST STEP in RCA to narrow down candidate metrics before applying more compute-intensive causal methods like rca_pyrca_ht_diagnosis or rca_pyrca_random_walk -- this one needs no causal graph at all, just two data windows. Requires the pyrca feature (Starter+).

Args: params (EpsilonDiagnosisInput): - normal_data: baseline {metric: [values]} (min 3 per metric) - anomaly_data: incident window {metric: [values]} - sli_metric: the observed anomaly metric - epsilon: z-score threshold (default 3.0 = 3σ)

Returns: str: JSON with root_causes (anomalous metrics ranked by |z_score|), all_metrics, sli_z_score, epsilon_threshold

Attribution: Adapted from PyRCA EpsilonDiagnosis (Salesforce, BSD-3-Clause) Zhen et al. (2022) ε-Diagnosis

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.1.15
    • addedInput schema / $defs / EpsilonDiagnosisInput / properties / client_id / description
      Added value: +"Client namespace ID"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / EpsilonDiagnosisInput / properties / token / description
      Added value: +"API key to authenticate this request"
  2. First observedv4.1.13

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false), the description explains the actual algorithm: z-score thresholding, comparing normal vs. incident windows, and flagging metrics as candidates. It also discloses the output shape and ranking by |z_score|. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and algorithm. The Args and Returns sections make it scannable. The attribution and citation add some length beyond what an agent strictly needs, but they do not obscure the actionable content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, key parameters, and the return format. Combined with the rich annotations and output schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the Args section compensates by explaining normal_data, anomaly_data, sli_metric, and epsilon including the default 3.0 and its meaning. It omits token and client_id, but those are auth/namespace boilerplate and their schema descriptions already provide enough context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Identify anomalous metrics contributing to a Service Level Indicator (SLI) anomaly'. It also explains the z-score mechanism and explicitly distinguishes this tool from causal siblings like rca_pyrca_ht_diagnosis and rca_pyrca_random_walk by noting it requires no causal graph.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Best used as a FIRST STEP in RCA to narrow down candidate metrics before applying more compute-intensive causal methods'. It also names the alternatives and notes the prerequisite 'Requires the pyrca feature (Starter+)'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.