Skip to main content
Glama
yunusemregul

dynatrace-bridge-mcp

by yunusemregul

process_runtime

Inspect JVM heap and GC, Node.js event loop, and per-process CPU and memory metrics to find the cause of pod memory growth or CPU saturation.

Instructions

Reports runtime metrics of the processes (Dynatrace PROCESS_GROUP_INSTANCE) running in a pod, a workload or a process group, or of one process. The technology is detected per process: JVM processes get heap usage, heap max, memory pools, GC suspension and GC time, and thread count; Node.js processes get V8 heap used / total, RSS, event loop utilization and latency; every process gets CPU usage and working set memory. Each metric is a summarised series (min / avg / max with its time / last / trend, and a table over time for the main ones).

Pass exactly one of pod, workload, process_group or process (id or name). Use it when pod_resources shows memory growth or CPU saturation and you need to know whether heap, GC or the event loop is the cause. Follow up with get_process for callers, callees and hosted services.

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
podNoThe pod whose processes to analyse, as an entity id (CLOUD_APPLICATION_INSTANCE-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
processNoA single process, as an entity id (PROCESS_GROUP_INSTANCE-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.
workloadNoThe workload whose processes to analyse, as an entity id (CLOUD_APPLICATION-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
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.
max_seriesNoMaximum series summarised per metric, ranked by average. Default 10, at most 50.
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_groupNoA process group, as an entity id (PROCESS_GROUP-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it discloses the per-technology metric behavior, the summarised-series return shape (min/avg/max plus a table over time), the exactly-one-selector constraint, and the execution channel plus failure protocol ('runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension ... report the error to the user; do not try to open browser tabs or use browser automation instead').

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 the mutually-exclusive selector rule, then when-to-use, then the execution-channel caveat. The long metric enumeration is justified since there is no output schema, but it is the one densest block in an otherwise tight three-paragraph description.

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 explains the return shape (summarised series with min/avg/max, time, last, trend, and a table over time), the selector constraint, defaults, and the failure path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a selection rule the schema does not express: 'Pass exactly one of pod, workload, process_group or process'. It also explains the default/omission behavior for environment via dynatrace_bridge_status, though time window semantics are largely already in the schema.

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 ('Reports runtime metrics of the processes ... running in a pod, a workload or a process group, or of one process') and enumerates the technology-specific metrics returned. It is clearly distinguishable from pod_resources (host/pod resource view) and get_process (callers/callees/hosted services), which are named in the text.

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 ('Use it when pod_resources shows memory growth or CPU saturation and you need to know whether heap, GC or the event loop is the cause') and an explicit follow-up ('Follow up with get_process for callers, callees and hosted services'). The alternatives are named rather than implied.

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