Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tiny-loki-mcp

tiny-loki-mcp

by Aegir-Tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

loki_label_values

Retrieve the list of distinct values for a specified Loki label like host or service to discover valid filter options before executing a log query.

Instructions

List values for one Loki label, such as host or service. Use this to discover valid filter values before running a log query. This is read-only.

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": {
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "loki_label_values"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesLabel name to inspect, for example host, service, or level.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description states 'This is read-only' which discloses the main behavioral trait. However, it does not cover potential issues like error handling or limits, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. First sentence presents the action, second the usage context. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and read-only nature. It lacks details on return format but that is likely intuitive for a label value list.

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 already describes the parameter with examples. Description adds 'host or service' which reinforces but does not significantly add beyond schema coverage (100%). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List values for one Loki label' with examples (host, service), and relates to discovering filter values. It distinguishes from siblings like loki_labels (which likely lists labels), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states 'Use this to discover valid filter values before running a log query.' Provides clear when-to-use guidance. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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