The heaviest read-only queries of the last hours from the query history, as workload statements (runs per minute = how often they ran). Nothing is saved or run.
The heaviest read-only queries of the last hours from the query history, as workload statements
(runs per minute = how often they ran). Nothing is saved or run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| hours | No | ||
| min_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this ("read-only", "Nothing is saved or run") while adding output semantics ("runs per minute"). It does not disclose what determines "heaviest", what top/min_ms do, or the shape of the returned workload statements.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, and no filler. The stray backticks around "hours" are a minor formatting blemish but the content is tight.
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?
With no output schema and three 0%-documented parameters, the description must carry more of the burden. It gestures at the return content (workload statements with runs-per-minute) but leaves top/min_ms and the selection criterion undefined, so an agent cannot fully parameterize the call.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only partially compensates: it explains the meaning of "hours" (the lookback window) but never defines "top" (count of queries?) or "min_ms" at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both description and schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: extracts the heaviest read-only queries from the query history and presents them as workload statements. This is more specific than a tautology, but it never names how it differs from nearby siblings like query_history or workload_list, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
"Nothing is saved or run" implicitly contrasts with workload_save and workload_run, hinting this is inspection-only. However there is no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.