Skip to main content
Glama

estimate_capacity

Estimate endpoint capacity with Little's Law to determine saturation RPS and risk levels (critical, high, medium, low) from current RPS and p99 latency.

Instructions

Estimate capacity per endpoint using Little's Law.

concurrency = RPS x (p99_ms / 1000)
saturation_rps = thread_pool_size / (p99_ms / 1000)

Risk levels (based on current_rps / saturation_rps):
  CRITICAL  > 80%
  HIGH      > 60%
  MEDIUM    > 40%
  LOW       otherwise

Args:
    repo_name: The logical name of the indexed repository.

Returns:
    List of dicts: ``endpoint_fqn``, ``current_rps``, ``p99_ms``,
    ``saturation_rps``, ``ceiling_concurrency``, ``risk_level``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the formulas, risk level thresholds, and return structure, providing sufficient transparency about tool behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured: starts with a summary, then formulas, risk levels, parameters, and returns. Every part earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values and tool usage. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'repo_name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description explains it as 'logical name of the indexed repository', adding meaningful context beyond the schema field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it estimates capacity per endpoint using Little's Law, listing formulas. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, as no other sibling tool focuses on capacity estimation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the functionality and provides formulas and risk levels, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools and the specific formulas make the usage clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/srinivasan-sundaresan95/orihime'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server