Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
syncause-debug-mcp

syncause-debug-mcp

by Syncause
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

diff_trace_execution

Compares execution paths and data between failed and successful requests to pinpoint bug root causes, automatically finding a successful trace for the same method when no comparison is provided.

Instructions

Compare the execution paths and data differences between two requests (usually one successful and one failed) to identify the root cause of bugs.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "baseTraceId": "<baseTraceId>"
    },
    "name": "diff_trace_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesThe unique identifier of the project.
baseTraceIdYesTrace ID where the failure occurred.
compareTraceIdNoOptional: Trace ID of a successful request for comparison. If not provided, the system will automatically find a successful record for the same method.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.15

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Compare' implies a read-only analytical operation, and the stated root-cause purpose adds real context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about cost, latency, permissions, or whether comparison has side effects on the traces.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the purpose trailing; no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the later dimensions under-served.

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?

For a moderately complex analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does but not what it returns — no hint about the shape of the diff (path comparison vs. data values) or how discrepancies are reported. The fully documented schema compensates for parameter gaps, keeping this at minimum viable rather than failing.

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%, so all three parameters including the optional compareTraceId and its auto-selection fallback are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, ID sourcing, or constraints, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Compare the execution paths and data differences between two requests') and states the goal (root cause of bugs). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or distinguish itself from likely siblings such as get_trace_insight or search_debug_traces, so an agent must infer which tool to pick.

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?

The parenthetical 'usually one successful and one failed' implies the intended comparison scenario and gives useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites like having two trace IDs, and no routing to alternative sibling tools for non-diff trace investigation.

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