Retrieve metadata for Prometheus metrics to inspect types, help text, and labels, with optional metric name and result limit filters.
Get metadata for metrics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of metrics to return | |
| metric | No | Metric name to get metadata for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get metadata for metrics' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's safe or destructive, or how results are structured (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal content, which could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema, but it's not overly verbose.
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?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' entails, how results are returned, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('metric' and 'limit') fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'metadata' includes or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Get metadata for metrics' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for metrics'), but it's vague about what 'metadata' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get-series' or 'get-rules' that might also retrieve metric-related data. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-series' or 'instant-query'. The description implies usage for metadata retrieval but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.