EX MCP Server

{ "status": "calling_expert_analysis", "step_number": 1, "total_steps": 1, "next_step_required": false, "continuation_id": "f59c0fae-6f20-4387-9fa7-56805640a538", "file_context": { "type": "fully_embedded", "files_embedded": 1, "context_optimization": "Full file content embedded for expert analysis" }, "expert_analysis": { "status": "analysis_complete", "raw_analysis": "## Executive Overview\nThe ActivityTool is a lightweight, read-only log viewer that safely surfaces the last N lines of a single file. \nIt is well-isolated, uses bounded memory, and respects a configurable project boundary. \nHowever, it is single-purpose to a fault: it cannot follow rotated logs, offers no time-window queries, and returns raw text that may overwhelm clients. \nThese limits are acceptable for a quick diagnostic aid, but they cap its usefulness as the system scales or as users expect richer observability.\n\n## Strategic Findings (Ordered by Impact)\n\n### 1. Brittle Log-Path Assumption\n**Insight:** The tool assumes the authoritative log is always at `<repo>/logs/mcp_activity.log` (or a single override file). \n**Evidence:** Lines 85-87 hard-code the relative path; line 89 rejects any file outside the project root. \n**Impact:** Once log rotation or containerised deployments move files away, the tool silently returns “file not found” and becomes useless. \n**Recommendation:** Accept a glob pattern (`logs/mcp_activity*.log`) and auto-detect the newest file, or delegate to an external log-aggregator side-car. \n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort, High payoff (restores visibility after rotation).\n\n### 2. No Time-Window or Severity Filtering\n**Insight:** Only regex filtering is offered; users cannot ask for “last 5 min” or “errors only”. \n**Evidence:** `ActivityRequest` (lines 18-21) exposes `lines` and `filter`, nothing else. \n**Impact:** Forces clients to download kilobytes of text and grep locally, wasting bandwidth and harming UX on large logs. \n**Recommendation:** Add optional `since` (ISO-8601) and `level` (INFO/WARN/ERROR) fields; parse the first timestamp of each line once and skip out-of-range blocks. \n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Medium effort, High payoff (aligns with observability best-practice).\n\n### 3. Raw Text Output Limits Client Integration\n**Insight:** The tool returns a single `TextContent` blob (line 120) with no structure. \n**Evidence:** Line 118 concatenates lines; no metadata (count, oldest/newest timestamp) is included. \n**Impact:** Clients cannot paginate, highlight, or fold sections; large responses may exceed message-size limits in some MCP transports. \n**Recommendation:** Offer an optional `format=json` mode that streams `{timestamp, level, message}[]`; keep `text` as default for backward compatibility. \n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort, Medium payoff (enables richer UI without breaking existing callers).\n\n### 4. Silent Encoding & Partial Line Failures\n**Insight:** `errors=\"ignore\"` (line 103) drops malformed bytes silently. \n**Evidence:** Line 103; no metric or warning emitted. \n**Impact:** Corrupted or non-UTF-8 logs (common with external shippers) yield truncated or misleading output. \n**Recommendation:** Use `errors=\"replace\"` and append a one-line warning header when replacement chars are encountered. \n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort, Low payoff (improves debuggability).\n\n### 5. Missing Observability on the Observability Tool\n**Insight:** No metrics or tracing around how often, how long, or how much data is served. \n**Evidence:** No instrumentation in `execute()`. \n**Impact:** Operators cannot detect if the tool itself becomes a bottleneck or if clients are abusing large line counts. \n**Recommendation:** Emit a counter (`activity_tool_requests_total{status}`) and histogram of bytes/response; log at DEBUG when `lines > 1000`. \n**Effort vs. Benefit:** Low effort, Medium payoff (standard SRE hygiene).\n\n## Quick Wins\n- Replace `errors=\"ignore\"` with `errors=\"replace\"` and prepend a warning when replacement chars appear. \n- Clamp `lines` upper bound to 10 000 instead of 5 000 to reduce round-trips for larger debugging sessions. \n- Return a one-line header: `--- last 237 lines (2024-06-01T14:23:00Z → 2024-06-01T14:25:12Z) ---` to give users immediate context.\n\n## Long-Term Roadmap Suggestions\n1. Integrate with the system-wide log shipper (Loki/Elastic/OTEL) and deprecate direct file access. \n2. Provide a small in-memory ring buffer (last 1 MiB) fed by the logging framework so the tool works even when disk is unavailable. \n3. Add a WebSocket push stream for live tailing, reducing polling load from clients.\n\n## Next Steps\n1. Implement glob-based file discovery to survive log rotation (Low effort, High impact). \n2. Add optional `since`/`level` filters to cut data transfer", "parse_error": "Response was not valid JSON" }, "next_steps": "ANALYSIS IS COMPLETE. You MUST now summarize and present ALL analysis findings organized by strategic impact (Critical → High → Medium → Low), specific architectural insights with code references, and exact recommendations for improvement. Clearly prioritize the top 3 strategic opportunities that need immediate attention. Provide concrete, actionable guidance for each finding—make it easy for a developer to understand exactly what strategic improvements to implement and how to approach them.\n\nIMPORTANT: Analysis from an assistant model has been provided above. You MUST thoughtfully evaluate and validate the expert insights rather than treating them as definitive conclusions. Cross-reference the expert analysis with your own systematic investigation, verify that architectural recommendations are appropriate for this codebase's scale and context, and ensure suggested improvements align with the project's goals and constraints. Present a comprehensive synthesis that combines your detailed analysis with validated expert perspectives, clearly distinguishing between patterns you've independently identified and additional strategic insights from expert validation.", "important_considerations": "IMPORTANT: Analysis from an assistant model has been provided above. You MUST thoughtfully evaluate and validate the expert insights rather than treating them as definitive conclusions. Cross-reference the expert analysis with your own systematic investigation, verify that architectural recommendations are appropriate for this codebase's scale and context, and ensure suggested improvements align with the project's goals and constraints. Present a comprehensive synthesis that combines your detailed analysis with validated expert perspectives, clearly distinguishing between patterns you've independently identified and additional strategic insights from expert validation.", "analysis_status": { "files_checked": 0, "relevant_files": 1, "relevant_context": 0, "issues_found": 0, "images_collected": 0, "current_confidence": "low", "insights_by_severity": {}, "analysis_confidence": "low" }, "complete_analysis": { "initial_request": "Assess the activity tool implementation for flaws, inefficiencies, instability, and UX complexity risks.", "steps_taken": 1, "files_examined": [], "relevant_files": [ "C:\\Project\\EX-AI-MCP-Server\\tools\\activity.py" ], "relevant_context": [], "issues_found": [], "work_summary": "=== ANALYZE WORK SUMMARY ===\nTotal steps: 1\nFiles examined: 0\nRelevant files identified: 1\nMethods/functions involved: 0\nIssues found: 0\n\n=== WORK PROGRESSION ===\nStep 1: " }, "analysis_complete": true, "metadata": { "tool_name": "analyze", "model_used": "kimi-k2-turbo-preview", "provider_used": "unknown" } }