Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

io.github.zw008/vmware-debug

record_case_timeline

Correlate previously submitted case evidence into a reproducible VMware incident timeline, revealing event spikes and ranked root-cause hypotheses for debug follow-up.

Instructions

[WRITE] Correlate everything this case has collected — steps 04/05.

WHEN: once evidence is in. Unlike build_incident_timeline, this takes no events: it reads the payloads already submitted, so the result is reproducible from the case folder alone months later, on a machine with access to nothing.

RETURNS: {event_count, window, binning, classification, spikes, spikes_total, hypotheses, evidence_without_events, evidence_without_events_detail, rejected, note} and writes timeline.md.

GOTCHAS: note distinguishes three states that all show zero events — no evidence submitted at all, evidence that carried none, and a genuinely quiet window — and names which items carried none, with what they held instead. rejected names any row that could not be read, with the evidence item it came from; dropping those silently would shrink the picture the conclusion rests on. Submit a read tool's raw result as payload for its events to reach here — a summary of the result carries no rows, and submit_case_evidence says so at the time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_nNoHow many ranked hypotheses come back (default 5). Spikes are capped separately at 20, true count in 'spikes_total'.
case_idYesThe case whose submitted payloads are correlated (from open_case/list_cases). Unlike build_incident_timeline this takes no events — everything comes from the case folder.
bin_secondsNoTime-bin width in seconds. Omit and it is chosen from event density (ladder 1..86400, finest width still averaging 4 events per bin); `binning` reports which was used.
z_thresholdNoStandard deviations above the mean bin count that mark a spike (default 2.0). Under 3 bins, or a flat series, yields none at any threshold.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the write/non-destructive profile; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that timeline.md is written, that the result is reproducible from the case folder, that unreadable rows are surfaced via `rejected` rather than silently dropped, and that `note` disambiguates three zero-event states. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with a bracketed operation tag and organized under WHEN/RETURNS/GOTCHAS headers, so an agent can scan it quickly. The GOTCHAS paragraph is dense and slightly long, but each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return keys and explains the two most easily misread ones (`note`, `rejected`), plus the side effect of writing timeline.md. For a four-parameter write tool this covers everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 top_n, bin_seconds, and z_threshold are already fully documented in the schema, and the description does not restate them. It adds only indirect parameter context via the payload-submission prerequisite and the return-key list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (correlate) and resource (everything the case has collected), and explicitly contrasts itself with build_incident_timeline, noting it takes no events. An agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ("WHEN: once evidence is in") and names the alternative (build_incident_timeline) along with the distinguishing condition (takes no events). The GOTCHAS section also tells the agent the prerequisite that a read tool's raw result must have been submitted as `payload`.

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