Skip to main content
Glama
yunusemregul

dynatrace-bridge-mcp

by yunusemregul
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

method_hotspots

Identify which methods consume the most time in a service or process group from Dynatrace stack samples. Reveal hot methods and call trees to locate performance bottlenecks.

Instructions

Shows which methods a service or process group spends its time in, from Dynatrace code-level stack samples: sample share per API (framework / library group) and per thread state, then the hot methods.

view: "flat" (default) ranks methods by self share (samples where the method itself was on top of the stack) and also gives the total share including callees. view: "tree" prints the call tree from the thread entry points downwards, pruned to branches above min_share_percent. By default only active states are counted (running on CPU, locking, network and disk I/O); include_waiting: true adds waiting threads.

Pass exactly one of service or process_group (id or name; ids come from list_services, trace_statistics or cpu_by_process_group). Numbers are stack samples, not milliseconds; compare shares. Follow up with thread_analysis for the thread groups behind the samples.

This tool runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser. If it fails, report the error to the user; do not try to open browser tabs or use browser automation instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoFlat view only: keep methods whose name or API contains this text (case-insensitive).
viewNoflat (default): top methods by self share. tree: pruned call tree.
limitNoMaximum number of methods (flat view, at most 200) or tree lines (tree view, default 40, at most 300) to print. Default 20. The output says how many were omitted.
serviceNoThe service whose code to profile, as an entity id (SERVICE-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
time_toNoAbsolute end time, ISO 8601; without a zone it is read as UTC. Without time_from, the window starts minutes_lookback before this. Must not be in the future.
time_fromNoAbsolute start time, ISO 8601 (e.g. '2026-09-23T10:28:00Z'). A timestamp without a zone (Z or ±hh:mm) is read as UTC. Without time_to, the window runs from here to now. Must not be in the future.
environmentNoWhich Dynatrace environment to query, as named in the Dynatrace Bridge extension popup. Omit it for the default, the first environment configured there. The names are not listed here because the extension had not connected yet when this description was built; `dynatrace_bridge_status` lists them.
process_groupNoThe process group to profile, as an entity id (PROCESS_GROUP-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
include_waitingNoAlso count samples of waiting threads. Default false.
minutes_lookbackNoWindow length in minutes. Default 120. With neither time_from nor time_to it means the last N minutes up to now; with only time_to it means the N minutes ending at time_to; ignored when time_from is given. The response header always shows the resolved absolute UTC window.
min_share_percentNoTree view only: hide branches below this share of all samples (0-100). Default 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it explains that the tool runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser, that an unconfigured environment resolves to a default, that browsers/tab automation must not be attempted on failure, and that numbers are stack samples rather than milliseconds. It does not mention rate limits, auth failure modes beyond 'report the error', or result-size behavior beyond the limit defaults.

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 the purpose, then structured in short paragraphs covering views, state defaults, scoping, and the browser-extension caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the length is on the heavier side and a couple of sentences (e.g. the environment caveat) could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the return shape (sample share per API group and thread state, then hot methods, plus omitted-count reporting) and the window-resolution behavior. For an 11-parameter, no-annotation, complex analysis tool, an agent has everything it needs to invoke it and interpret results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: flat view ranks by self share while also reporting total share including callees, tree view is pruned at min_share_percent, and active states are counted by default with include_waiting opting waiting threads in. It also states the resolved absolute UTC window is echoed in the response header.

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 and resource — showing which methods consume time, broken down by sample share per API and per thread state — anchored to a named data source (Dynatrace code-level stack samples). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings such as memory_allocation_hotspots, cpu_by_process_group and thread_analysis.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete routing rules: 'Pass exactly one of service or process_group', where the ids come from (list_services, trace_statistics, cpu_by_process_group), and an explicit follow-up ('use thread_analysis for the thread groups behind the samples'). It stops short of explicitly excluding the other hotspot-style siblings, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools