spx-mcp-server

get_hot_paths

Retrieve the top call paths from a SPX report to focus performance analysis.

Instructions

Return only the hottest call paths for one SPX report.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "get_hot_paths"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes
`limit`	No
`metric`	No
`spxKey`	No	SPX HTTP key. Defaults to SPX_KEY.
`baseUrl`	No	SPX-enabled application base URL. Defaults to SPX_BASE_URL.
`timeoutMs`	No
`maxPathDepth`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'hottest' means. The agent receives no information about side effects, permissions, or operational constraints.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (9 words) but underspecified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence omits critical information and does not justify its brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the results, or how parameters interact. The tool's complexity demands far more detail.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The one-sentence description adds no meaning to any parameter—it does not explain 'key', 'limit', 'metric', 'timeoutMs', or 'maxPathDepth'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Return only the hottest call paths for one SPX report,' which indicates a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, 'hottest' is ambiguous and not defined, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_report or get_function_profile. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions 'for one SPX report' implying a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_raw_events, get_function_profile). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are given.

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

Deploy Server