Track daily and hourly query counts, runtime, failures, and p95 from local history, and identify query shapes that slowed compared with the previous week.
Daily / hourly query counts, runtime, failures and p95 from the local copy of the history, plus query shapes that got slower than the week before.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the data comes from a local copy of history and includes a week-over-week slowdown comparison, but it omits return format, pagination, auth details, and how the local copy may differ from live data.
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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned metrics efficiently. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler, though it could be slightly clearer with punctuation around the final comparison clause.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what data is returned and the comparison baseline. However, it leaves parameter semantics unaddressed and gives no routing guidance among the many sibling query_history tools, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
There is one parameter (days) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its default of 30. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, this single parameter meaning is left entirely unstated, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific analytical output: daily/hourly query counts, runtime, failures, p95, plus slower query shapes versus the prior week. It clearly identifies the resource (query history trends) but does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like query_history, query_history_data, or query_history_tuning.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, despite many sibling query_history_* tools. The output description implies trend analysis, but the agent receives no criteria for choosing this tool over query_history_compare_candidates, query_history_advisor, or query_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.