Telemetry Machine

Edit saved views

edit_saved_views

Destructive

Create, update or delete one of the user's saved explorer views of a traces or logs dataset. update changes only what you give.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "edit_saved_views"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	update and delete: the view.
`name`	No	Required to create.
`since`	No	Its time range, e.g. 1h, up to 365d. Default: 30m.
`where`	No	Filters that all hold. IN and NOT IN take a list.
`action`	Yes
`columns`	No	Fields shown after the default columns, which every view starts with and the result gives as default_columns. Traces: timestamp_unix_ns, resource.service.name, duration_ns, name, status_code. Logs: timestamp_unix_ns, resource.service.name, log.severity_text, log.body.
`dataset`	No	create: the dataset.
`root_only`	No	Traces: only root spans. Default: true.
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / columns / description

Previous value: -"Fields shown after the default columns."New value: +"Fields shown after the default columns, which every view starts with and the result gives as default_columns. Traces: timestamp_unix_ns, resource.service.name, duration_ns, name, status_code. Logs: timestamp_unix_ns, resource.service.name, log.severity_text, log.body."

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety framing is largely covered, and the description usefully adds that update is a partial patch rather than a replace. It does not warn that delete is irreversible or that no confirmation step exists, which is the kind of context that would earn a higher score.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, and the patch-semantics clause placed second where it is most actionable. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with one required parameter, full action enum, rich schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool operates on and the key update behavior. It stops short of noting that returned values or the effect of deletion on the view list, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 78% and the schema already documents per-action requirements (id for update/delete, name/dataset for create), defaults, and the where/columns semantics. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

The description states a specific verb set (create/update/delete) and a specific resource (the user's saved explorer view of a traces or logs dataset), which is precise enough for an agent to know exactly what is being mutated. It does not name the read counterpart get_saved_views or distinguish itself from edit_dashboards/edit_widgets, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the action enumeration; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer creating a view versus running an ad-hoc query, nor on when to look up an existing view via get_saved_views before editing. The one useful clause, 'update changes only what you give,' tells the agent patch semantics but not selection criteria.

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

All Telemetry Machine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?