List OpenObserve streams with type, document count, and last event time. Filter by stream type or name to narrow results for logs, metrics, or traces.
List OpenObserve streams (read-only) with type, document count and last event time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Only streams of this type. | |
| limit | No | Max streams to return (default 100). | |
| filter | No | Case-insensitive substring of the stream name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (type, document count, last event time), which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action (List OpenObserve streams) and follows with key output details. No unnecessary words, and it is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of the returned fields (type, document count, last event time) is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema. It does not mention pagination or defaults beyond the schema, but those are already in the parameter descriptions, making this complete enough for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are well documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it only mentions 'type' in the output context, not as a filter. Since the schema covers everything, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (OpenObserve streams), and specifies that it is read-only and includes type, document count, and last event time. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like o2_stream_schema (schema retrieval) and o2_search (searching), though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys a clear use case: listing streams. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.