Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao

Node Doctor

node_doctor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose memory and latency health for a connected ElastiCache node, returning engine advice and findings for unhealthy lines while treating unsupported commands as notes, not errors.

Instructions

MEMORY DOCTOR and LATENCY DOCTOR of the connected node: the engine's advice plus findings for non-healthy lines. Engines that reject the command get a note, not an error. node_triage includes this.

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_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: it returns engine advice plus findings for non-healthy lines, and engines that reject the command produce a note rather than an error. That graceful-degradation detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and annotations do not convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by degradation behavior and a sibling relationship. No wasted wording, though the all-caps engine command names are slightly noisy.

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 no parameters, a present output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description only needs to explain what is returned and failure behavior. It does both adequately; the main missing piece is clearer usage guidance against the dedicated memory and latency tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond noting that it operates on the connected node. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: combining MEMORY DOCTOR and LATENCY DOCTOR output for the connected node, including engine advice and findings for non-healthy lines. It also hints at relationship to node_triage, though the terminology is engine-jargon-heavy and less immediately distinguishable from node_memory or node_latency.

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?

The note that 'node_triage includes this' implies an alternative for broader triage, giving some routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to the dedicated memory and latency siblings.

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