Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lu-query

lu-query

by zademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_wait_events

List current Oracle wait events from V$SESSION_WAIT, with optional SID and wait class filters to diagnose session performance bottlenecks.

Instructions

List current wait events from V$SESSION_WAIT. Optional sid filter and wait_class filter (e.g. 'Application','Concurrency','User I/O').

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_wait_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sidNoOptional session id (SID) filter.
waitClassNoOptional wait class filter (e.g. 'User I/O', 'Application').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.16.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying data source (V$SESSION_WAIT), which is useful context, but says nothing about required privileges, whether the read is truly side-effect-free, rate/cost implications, or what the result set looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source view before the optional filters. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight, yet it does not describe return columns or result shape for the V$SESSION_WAIT view. It is adequate for invoking the tool (optional filters fully covered) but leaves the return and safety context thin.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the filters and adds one extra wait_class example ('Concurrency'), but adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List current wait events') and even names the source view (V$SESSION_WAIT), so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. It does not differentiate from the many sibling session/diagnostic tools (list_active_sessions, list_blocked_sessions, get_session_longops), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'current' implies a live-snapshot diagnostic use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the session-oriented siblings. Usage is only implied.

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