cron_query_metricsQuery parsed Prometheus /metrics samples from cronstable, optionally filtering by a metric-name substring to inspect scheduler and job metrics.
Parsed samples from the Prometheus /metrics exposition, optionally filtered by a metric-name substring match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| match | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the Prometheus source and filtering behavior, but does not explain the `limit` behavior, default result size, or what happens when the metrics endpoint is unavailable.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple query tool, though the phrasing 'Parsed samples from...' is slightly less direct than an action-first description.
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 is simple and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description should do more to set expectations for returned samples. It also omits any explanation of `limit`, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool confidently in all cases.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `match` as a metric-name substring but says nothing about `limit`, leaving one of the two parameters undocumented.
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 the specific resource and source: parsed samples from the Prometheus /metrics exposition, with an optional metric-name substring filter. It is clear enough to distinguish this from the cron-related siblings, though it does not explicitly say 'query' or 'list' as the verb.
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 only usage guidance is that the `match` filter is optional; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The tool's purpose implies it should be used for metrics inspection, but that is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.