Search, group, and count RUM events by a chosen dimension over a time range, optionally filtering by query.
Search, group and count RUM events by a specified dimension
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | End time in epoch seconds | |
| from | Yes | Start time in epoch seconds | |
| query | No | Optional query filter for RUM search | * |
| groupBy | No | Dimension to group results by. Default is application.name | application.name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions grouping and counting but doesn't describe what the output looks like (aggregated counts? grouped summaries?), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any constraints on the 'groupBy' dimension beyond the default. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with key distinguishing information about when to use it.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (crucial for a grouping/counting operation), doesn't mention any constraints or prerequisites, and provides minimal guidance on usage. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'specified dimension' which relates to 'groupBy', but doesn't provide additional context about valid dimensions or grouping behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search, group and count') and resource ('RUM events'), and specifies the grouping dimension. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_rum_events' or 'get_rum_page_performance', but the grouping/counting focus provides some implicit differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when this grouped counting approach is preferable to other RUM tools like 'get_rum_events' (which presumably returns raw events) or 'get_rum_page_performance' (which focuses on performance metrics).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.