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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Slowlog

node_slowlog
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Redis/Valkey SLOWLOG entries and per-command totals to diagnose ElastiCache latency; command arguments stay hidden unless include_args is enabled.

Instructions

SLOWLOG entries plus per-command totals. Arguments beyond the key are hidden unless include_args is true.

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_slowlog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoEntries to fetch
include_argsNoReturn full command arguments (may expose values)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is free. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: arguments beyond the key are withheld by default, which is a data-exposure disclosure an agent needs before deciding to set include_args.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one behavioral caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The two-parameter surface is fully documented; only the relationship to the cluster-level slowlog sibling is left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by making the default redaction behavior explicit and tying it to include_args, clarifying the consequence of the flag rather than just its type.

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?

Names a specific resource and output shape: SLOWLOG entries plus per-command totals. The agent knows exactly what the call returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling node_cluster_slowlog.

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 resource name (fetch slow log entries to diagnose slow commands), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer that redaction is the reason to set include_args rather than being told.

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