Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-trace-mcp

agent-trace-mcp

by Pawangunjkar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

trace_get_run

Retrieve all trace spans for a specific run ID to inspect latency, failures, and token costs of MCP tool calls.

Instructions

Return every span for one run id.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "trace_get_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly identifies a read operation ('Return') and states scope ('every span' for 'one run id'), implying no mutation or pagination. However, it does not mention required permissions, error behavior, ordering, or cardinality beyond 'every span'.

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?

A single seven-word sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning and there is no filler.

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 a single required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple retrieval tool. It misses only richer usage context such as how a run_id is created (via trace_record) or which sibling would be better for status/token/failure data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and only names run_id with title 'Run Id.' The description merely repeats 'one run id' and adds no format, example, or guidance on where to obtain a valid run_id. Since there is no enum and no schema description, the description should have compensated but did not.

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?

The description states a clear action and resource: 'Return every span for one run id.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like trace_list_runs, since it requires a run_id and returns spans rather than listing runs, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 is given about when to choose this tool over trace_status, trace_list_runs, or trace_failed_tools. The only signal is the run_id requirement, which implies the agent must already have a run, but no explicit preconditions or alternatives are 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