Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trace MCP

Trace MCP

by Mnehmos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

trace_file

Detect HTTP calls, GraphQL queries, MCP tool calls, and property access in a source file to trace API usage and identify schema mismatches.

Instructions

Trace API usage in a single file. Detects HTTP calls, GraphQL queries, MCP tool calls, and response property access.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "trace_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to client source file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / filePath / description
      Previous value: -"Path to a TypeScript file"New value: +"Path to client source file"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses detection capabilities (HTTP calls, GraphQL queries, etc.), but does not mention side effects, output format, or any limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with core purpose. No redundancy, but could include a brief example or usage hint without bloating.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, lacking differentiation from sibling trace_usage reduces completeness slightly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter filePath, which already includes a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'trace' and the resource 'file', and enumerates specific API types detected (HTTP, GraphQL, MCP, response property). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_usage which may have broader scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., trace_usage). No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use information provided.

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