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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Commandstats

node_commandstats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves Redis command statistics ranked by CPU time, showing call counts, latency percentiles, and failed or rejected commands to pinpoint OOM, READONLY, and permission errors.

Instructions

Commands ranked by CPU time (INFO commandstats): calls, usec per call, rejected and failed, error prefixes, p50/p99/p99.9 when available. Findings for OOM/READONLY/NOPERM errors and p99 over 10 ms.

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_commandstats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's job is to add analytical context — it does, by disclosing that percentiles are only present 'when available' and that findings are emitted for specific error prefixes and a p99 > 10 ms threshold. It does not mention cost or whether sampling/aggregation windows affect the numbers, which would have been the final touch.

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?

Two dense sentences with the resource and returned metrics front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic list style ('rejected and failed, error prefixes, p50/p99/p99.9') is compact but slightly clipped, and the findings sentence could be tied more tightly to the first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and it does explain the analytic content and the alert thresholds it applies. The only real gap is the undocumented `top` parameter, which leaves ranking depth unspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter `top`, and the description never mentions it — an agent must infer from the name and the default 20 / max 500 that it bounds how many commands are returned. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 names a concrete resource and verb: commands ranked by CPU time from INFO commandstats, plus the exact fields returned (calls, usec/call, rejected, failed, error prefixes, p50/p99/p99.9). It is clearly a per-command CPU/error profile rather than a general slowlog or latency view, though it never names the sibling (e.g. node_slowlog, node_latency) it is meant to displace.

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 only implied: the mention of findings for OOM/READONLY/NOPERM errors and p99 over 10 ms hints this is the tool for diagnosing per-command errors and tail latency. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to an alternative tool for related questions.

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