redis_slowlogRetrieve Redis slow query logs to identify commands exceeding latency thresholds, enabling targeted performance diagnosis and optimization.
Slow log Redis (SLOWLOG GET)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool executes SLOWLOG GET, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether any Redis configuration affects it, how many entries are returned, or how errors are handled. This is too thin for a command-wrapper tool.
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 very short and front-loads the core resource and command without filler. It earns its place by naming the exact Redis command. The awkward grammar and lack of context prevent a 5, but there is no redundancy.
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?
The tool has a generic input schema and no annotations, and while an output schema exists, the description does not explain the optional 'params' object or any tool-specific limits. For an agent to call it correctly with arbitrary SLOWLOG arguments, significant detail is missing.
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?
The schema has one undocumented 'params' field with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent cannot know what arguments (e.g., count, reset subcommands) can be passed or whether to pass them. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names Redis as the target and includes the exact command SLOWLOG GET, so the operation is clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like redis_info and redis_memory by focusing on the slow log resource. The phrasing 'Slow log Redis' is awkward, but the parenthetical removes ambiguity.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource: an agent needing Redis slow log entries would select this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.