SEQ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing 'patterns and statistics' but doesn't specify what kind of patterns (e.g., error trends, performance metrics) or statistics (e.g., counts, averages) are returned, nor does it address permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'search_events'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's scope, output format, or how it differs from related tools, making it inadequate for confident agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'time period' which loosely maps to 'timeRange', but doesn't explain 'query' (SEQ query filter) or 'groupBy' (property to group results by). The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names, leaving semantics largely undocumented.

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 states the tool 'analyze log patterns and statistics over a time period', which provides a clear verb ('analyze') and resource ('logs'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific analysis is performed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search_events' or 'list_signals', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'list_signals'. It mentions a 'time period' but doesn't specify scenarios where pattern/statistical analysis is preferred over other log-related operations, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.