Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chainsaw MCP Server

Chainsaw MCP Server

by MadameFabulous
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Chainsaw: log gap analysis

chainsaw_analyse_gaps

Detect chronological or EventRecordID discontinuities in Windows EVTX logs to flag timeline gaps for investigation and correlation with acquisition history.

Instructions

Detect chronological or EventRecordID discontinuities for investigation.

Curated or filtered samples naturally contain gaps; these are not proof of deletion. Correlate with acquisition history and Security 1102 / System 104.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "chainsaw_analyse_gaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum gaps to return.
pathsYesEVTX files or directories under an allowed root.
to_timeNoAnalyse up to YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.
timezoneNoIANA timezone for output.
from_timeNoAnalyse from YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.
time_gapsNoDetect chronological gaps.
skip_errorsNoContinue past unreadable files.
record_id_gapsNoDetect EventRecordID gaps.
min_time_gap_minutesNoFlag time gaps at least this long.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds non-obvious interpretive context beyond that: gaps in curated/filtered samples are expected and are not proof of deletion, and results should be cross-checked against event IDs 1102/104. It does not, however, note that results are persisted (consistent with readOnlyHint=false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a concise interpretation caveat and correlation hint. No redundant phrasing, though it is terse enough that return-format expectations are unstated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of the result (list of gaps, how they are represented). It does cover the meaning and pitfalls of the output well, which partially compensates, but an agent still lacks confirmation of what it will receive.

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 100% and all nine parameters are self-documented (limit, paths, from/to_time, timezone, time_gaps, record_id_gaps, skip_errors, min_time_gap_minutes). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Detect) and resource (chronological or EventRecordID discontinuities), which is clearer than a generic 'analyse EVTX'. An agent can distinguish it from chainsaw_analyse_evtx or chainsaw_hunt, though it never explicitly names a sibling for contrast.

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?

'for investigation' plus 'Correlate with acquisition history and Security 1102 / System 104' gives implied context for when the output matters. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling analysis tools (analyse_evtx, hunt), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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