Skip to main content
Glama

observability_log_pattern_miner

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CTO, extract anomalous log patterns from public breach reports (e.g., Verizon DBIR) and MITRE ATT&CK techniques to optimize SIEM rules and observability pipelines. Inputs include threat actor groups, MITRE tactics (e.g., 'TA0005'), or log sources (e.g., 'AWS CloudTrail'). Outputs structured patterns with MITRE mappings, prevalence scores, and detection recommendations. Ideal for reducing false positives and improving breach detection coverage. Pass async:true to avoid timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
tacticYesMITRE ATT&CK tactic ID (e.g., 'TA0005')
techniqueNoMITRE ATT&CK technique ID (e.g., 'T1059')
log_sourceNoLog source type (e.g., 'AWS CloudTrail', 'Windows Event Log')
max_resultsNo
threat_actorNoThreat actor group name (e.g., 'APT29')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesYes
metadataNo
patternsYes
warningsYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, openWorldHint:true, idempotentHint:true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: outputs structured patterns with MITRE mappings, prevalence scores, detection recommendations, and a warning about potential timeouts (async hint). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise (5 sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and each sentence adds unique value: purpose, inputs, outputs, ideal use case, async tip. No fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, use case, and async behavior. It does not detail error conditions or rate limits, but annotations handle safety and idempotency, and the async advice suggests potential timeouts. Minor gaps but largely complete.

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 83% (max_results missing description). The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how inputs (threat_actor, tactic, technique, log_source) map to the tool's purpose and giving examples (e.g., 'TA0005', 'AWS CloudTrail'), and clarifies async usage. This compensates for the missing max_results description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts anomalous log patterns from public breach reports and MITRE ATT&CK techniques, which is distinct from sibling tools like observability_metric_anomaly_detector (for metrics) and other security tools. The verb 'extract' and resource 'log patterns from breach reports and MITRE techniques' are specific.

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 description provides context on when to use (e.g., 'Ideal for reducing false positives and improving breach detection coverage') and async guidance, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternative tools. Sibling list exists but no specific alternatives are named.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources