Skip to main content
Glama
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio

Stats

stats
Read-only

Check infrastructure health for an API engine or specific endpoint over the last hour to diagnose availability or performance issues.

Instructions

Stats. Infrastructure health for an engine or endpoint over the last hour. Not scoped to your account or tenant. Enabled per account: HTTP 403 means contact support to activate it.

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": "stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoSpecific endpoint to check, for example /v1/vat. If you also pass engine, use an endpoint from that API.
engineNoAPI family to check, for example vat. Provide at least engine or path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: a one-hour time window, cross-tenant scope ('Not scoped to your account or tenant'), and per-account enablement where HTTP 403 means activation is required. Only the shape of the returned data is left unexplained.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by scope and error handling. The leading 'Stats.' merely restates the title and is the only wasted token.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, time window, tenancy scope, minimum parameter requirement, and the enablement failure mode. With no output schema, only the return format is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both path and engine are already documented with examples and the engine/path coupling. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only baseline credit.

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?

The description states a concrete resource and scope: infrastructure health for an engine or endpoint, limited to the last hour. That is specific enough to distinguish it from analytics-style siblings such as usage, although it never names an alternative outright.

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?

'Provide at least engine or path' is usage-adjacent but largely duplicates the schema. The 403/contact-support note gives a recovery path, yet there is no explicit statement of when to choose stats over usage or the intelligence_* tools.

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