Diagnose MySQL InnoDB performance issues by parsing SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS to extract history list, deadlocks, semaphores, and buffer pool metrics.
Parsed SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS: history list, deadlocks, semaphores, buffer pool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It does disclose that the tool parses SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS and which sections are included, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, potential performance impact, or that it returns a structured, parsed representation rather than the raw command output.
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 filler. Every word contributes: it names the command, states the parsing behavior, and lists the meaningful output categories.
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?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and a very simple tool shape, the description is nearly complete. It briefly lists what the result covers, and the output schema handles return-value details. It could add a sentence about when not to use it, but the core context is adequately covered.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the empty input schema combined with the description is fully sufficient.
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 specifies the resource ('SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS') and the transformation applied ('Parsed'), then enumerates the key content areas: history list, deadlocks, semaphores, buffer pool. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like mysql_global_status or mysql_variables without needing to inspect schemas.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as mysql_innodb_trx, mysql_lock_waits, or mysql_global_status. The description implies that it is for InnoDB status internals, but it does not state explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.