Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCDR MCP

OpenCDR MCP

Official
by dbnz-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

opencdr_rules_metrics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads Core rule and release aggregates with optional date, rule, release, and agent filters, and preserves partial results for inspection; set agent_id for fleet mode, omit it for Core mode.

Instructions

Read Core's rule/release aggregates. Preserve and inspect partial results.

In fleet mode, supply agent_id explicitly. Core mode leaves agent_id unset.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "opencdr_rules_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
date_toNo
rule_idNo
agent_idNo
date_fromNo
release_idNo
rule_versionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds that results may be partial and should be preserved and inspected, which is real behavioral context not in annotations, but it is cryptic and doesn't explain why results might be partial or what inspection entails.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose first, which is good. However, the telegraphic phrasing ('Preserve and inspect partial results') is ambiguous rather than dense, and the mode guidance is split across two clipped sentences.

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?

A 6-parameter aggregate-reporting tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage needs far more than four terse sentences. Filter semantics, date formats, and the shape of aggregates returned are all undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains agent_id's mode semantics; date_from, date_to, rule_id, release_id, and rule_version are left entirely undefined, including format expectations.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read Core's rule/release aggregates. This distinguishes it reasonably from listing tools like opencdr_rules_list or opencdr_rules_get, though the term 'aggregates' is jargon that could be clearer (metrics? counts? rollups?).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives mode-specific guidance for agent_id (fleet mode vs Core mode), which is genuinely actionable. But it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling rule tools, nor what the date/rule/release filters are for.

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