Skip to main content
Glama

Server metrics

server_metrics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect coin-scout transport metrics—HTTP requests, batch compression, retries, cache hit rate, and rate-limit state—to diagnose slow responses or confirm caching works.

Instructions

coin-scout transport stats: HTTP requests issued, JSON-RPC batch compression, retries, cache hit rate and adaptive rate-limit state. Use to explain slow responses or confirm caching is working.

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": "server_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.0.0-development

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by disclosing that the payload covers retries and adaptive rate-limit state, indicating the server may be throttling itself, which is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences: the first names and enumerates the metrics, the second states the diagnostic use. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description effectively previews the return contents by listing the metric families, and the absence of parameters removes the need for input guidance. A note on the shape of the response (e.g. counters vs. gauges) would make it fully complete.

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 zero parameters there is nothing for the description to clarify, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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 states a specific resource: 'coin-scout transport stats', then enumerates the metrics (HTTP requests, batch compression, retries, cache hit rate, adaptive rate-limit state). This is clearly the server's own transport telemetry rather than blockchain data, which distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like solana_rpc and chain_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to explain slow responses or confirm caching is working' gives a concrete diagnostic trigger for calling the tool. It does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools for related questions, keeping it just short of the top score.

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