Monitor developer metrics including account and per-space resource counters, token usage, query cost, and server runtime performance with error counts and read-latency percentiles.
Developer metrics: role-scoped account + per-space counters (caps, headroom, resident tokens, queries, cost) plus measured server runtime (calls, errors, read-latency percentiles). Not metered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is not metered, which is valuable, and indicates it returns counters and metrics. However, it doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or what exactly the output structure is. Some effort is made, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main categories and lists concrete metrics. There is no fluff; every clause adds information. The 'Not metered' note is a valuable addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema divine, so the description does well to enumerate the data types (counters, latency percentiles). But for a metrics tool with a complex return structure, it could specify more about how to interpret the values, units, or time ranges. Still, given the single optional parameter, the description is adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, sessionId, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the role of sessionId, but since it's optional and the tool can operate without it, the description's lack of detail is less critical. The low coverage raises the burden, but with a single optional string parameter, a 4 is appropriate because the schema is so simple that the description doesn't need to add much.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a metrics tool covering two categories: developer metrics (role-scoped account + per-space counters) and server runtime metrics (calls, errors, latency). The scope is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like noetic.usage and noetic.receipt, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is 'Not metered,' which is useful for cost-aware decisions, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like noetic.usage or noetic.receipt. No exclusions or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.