Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Clients Summary

node_clients_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize client connections by source IP, name, library, user, and flags to identify top talkers, idle-over-1h clients, large buffers, and maxclients pressure—without exposing commands or keys.

Instructions

Who holds the connections: CLIENT LIST grouped by source IP, name or library, user and flags, top IPs, idle over 1h, big buffers, maxclients use. Capped rows per group; never commands, arguments or keys.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "node_clients_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
near_maxclients_pctNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: results are capped per group, and the output deliberately omits commands, arguments and keys, which tells the agent both about truncation and about sensitive fields being excluded. It does not explain how the idle/big-buffer thresholds are defined.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loaded with the core question it answers, then lists grouping dimensions and the exclusion note. It is telegraphic and slightly compressed, but every clause carries information about scope or content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be spelled out, and the annotations cover safety. What is missing is a full explanation of the two numeric parameters and of the node context the tool operates on, which leaves a summary tool with 0% schema coverage only partially documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should carry the burden for 'top' and 'near_maxclients_pct'. The phrases 'top IPs' and 'maxclients use' only loosely gesture at these two parameters, and neither the default-driven meaning of near_maxclients_pct nor how 'top' bounds group rows is explained. There is marginal added meaning, but the schema-side gap is largely unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb-and-resource picture: it is a CLIENT LIST summary grouped by source IP, name/library, user and flags, with top IPs, idle-over-1h, big buffers and maxclients usage. That clearly sets it apart from a raw per-connection tool like node_clients, which is implicitly the ungrouped alternative. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the framing ('Who holds the connections' plus grouped aggregates), so an agent can infer this is the aggregate-view tool rather than the raw-list tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as which node or credential is required, and no stated exclusion or alternative by name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools