analyze_slow_queries_topnIdentify performance bottlenecks by analyzing the top N slowest queries over a configurable period, with a minimum execution time filter.
Analyze top N slowest queries and identify performance bottlenecks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days of audit history to analyze | |
| top_n | No | Number of slow queries to return | |
| min_execution_time_ms | No | Minimum query execution time in milliseconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'analyze' and 'identify bottlenecks.' It does not state that the operation is read-only, what source data it uses, how results are ordered, whether it mutates anything, or what the output format will be.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could earn a 5 by adding a quick usage hint or output note, but as written it is appropriately concise without being tautological.
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 relatively simple and parameters are fully described, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the analysis returns or how the results are presented. Given the wide sibling set and lack of annotations, the coverage is incomplete for confident invocation.
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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description's 'top N' and 'slowest' loosely map to top_n and min_execution_time_ms, but it adds no semantic detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze top N slowest queries' and states an outcome ('identify performance bottlenecks'). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar siblings like analyze_query or query_and_plotly_chart.
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?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many diagnostic siblings present, nor any exclusions or scenario-based context. The phrase 'identify performance bottlenecks' only weakly implies a use case but does not instruct an agent when to select this vs analyze_query or top_bad_tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.