Count Cloud Insight monitoring events within a specified Unix time range. Provide start and end times to retrieve event totals for incident or performance analysis.
Get the count of monitoring events from Cloud Insight within a specified time range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endTime | Yes | End time in Unix epoch milliseconds | |
| startTime | Yes | Start time in Unix epoch milliseconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / eventLevelRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Event severity level filter",
- "enum": [
- "CRITICAL",
- "WARNING",
- "INFO"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / prodKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Product key to filter events",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / ruleGroupIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Rule group ID to filter events",
- "type": "string"
-}v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds only that the operation targets Cloud Insight monitoring events over a time range. It does not disclose rate limits, whether the count is exact or approximate, or what the returned value represents beyond 'count'.
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?
A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple count tool.
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?
For a two-parameter, read-only count query, the description plus schema gives enough to invoke correctly. The main minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return is a total event count, though 'Get the count' strongly implies it.
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?
The only two parameters are fully documented in the schema with Unix epoch millisecond descriptions, and the description reinforces that they define a time range. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the count of monitoring events') and scopes it to Cloud Insight and a time range. It is clear enough to separate from event-detail siblings by the 'count' operation, but it never explicitly names an alternative tool such as ncloud_search_events or ncloud_search_event_by_id.
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?
It gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives; the time range is part of the tool's scope, not a routing guideline. An agent must infer the usage from the name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.