Retrieve most visited routes, entry routes, session counts, and device splits from RUM probes to analyze user traffic patterns and diagnose frontend issues.
[probe RUM] Most visited routes, entry routes, sessions, device split.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | No | Proxy workload whose probe ingests RUM (auto-discovered if omitted) | |
| namespace | No | Kubernetes namespace (required: no default configured; see list_namespaces) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It opens with '[probe RUM]' indicating the data source is a probe ingesting RUM, which is useful context. It lists output categories but does not disclose side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or limitations such as probe configuration requirements. It adds some context but not comprehensive transparency.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single line with the probe tag front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy. It is well-structured for quick scanning.
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 with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description lists the data categories returned but omits details like time range, aggregation method, or how to interpret the data. Given the simplicity and existing schema, it is adequate but lacks depth that would help an agent fully understand the output.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, remaining silent on service and namespace. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 states the tool returns most visited routes, entry routes, sessions, and device split, which is specific and distinct from siblings like get_web_vitals or get_page_load_breakdown that focus on performance. The 'get' prefix implies retrieval. It does not explicitly say 'returns', but the intent is clear.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context such as needing traffic analytics or route popularity, nor does it exclude scenarios where other RUM tools would be more appropriate. The description leaves usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.