observability-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation and data source (Loki vs. Thanos), with clear naming and descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tasks like label listing are differentiated by the datasource prefix.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., 'query_loki_instant', 'list_labels'. The naming clearly indicates the action and the target, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering essential operations for two datasources (metrics and logs), the count is well-scoped. There are no redundant tools, and each tool serves a clear purpose without overwhelming the agent.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the core query and metadata exploration for both Loki and Thanos, including instant/range queries, label discovery, and series listing. No obvious gaps exist for standard observability workflows.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is responsible for all behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format (JSON array) and parameter roles, but lacks details on potential volume, side effects, read-only nature, or any rate limits.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, a list of two parameters, and a return type. No superfluous information, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential functionality. It could mention that omitting both parameters returns all labels or clarify the time range semantics, but it is generally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters with brief explanations ('Optional start of the time range for label filtering.') that go beyond the schema which only provides names and types. However, it does not specify expected formats (e.g., RFC3339) or behavior when omitted.
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 first sentence 'List all metric label names available in Thanos' clearly states the verb (list), resource (metric label names), and scope (Thanos), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_loki_labels which deal with Loki log labels.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_loki_labels, list_series). There is no mention of when not to use it or what the prerequisites are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (listing labels) and that optional time range filtering is available. However, it does not mention any potential performance implications, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic function.
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?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a brief Args and Returns section. No unnecessary information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.
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 the tool's simplicity (listing label names with optional time filters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, output format, and behavior. It lacks only minor details like pagination or rate limits, but is largely complete for a straightforward listing tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the start and end parameters as optional time range filters, but omits details like expected format (e.g., RFC3339 string, Unix timestamp) or how they affect the results. This provides basic meaning but not complete clarity.
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 tool lists available Loki label names from the configured datasource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_loki_label_values, which lists values for a specific label, by specifying the resource (label names) and the action (list).
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where other tools like query_loki_logs or list_loki_label_values might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions read operation implicitly but does not state non-destructiveness, auth needs, or rate limits. Return format is covered but not behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear one-liner followed by param details. No wasted words, but could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded effectively.
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?
With output schema present, return format is covered. The description explains purpose and parameters adequately but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed semantics for all parameters: match explanation with examples, start/end as optional timestamps, and the important detail that comma-separated values become separate match[] parameters.
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 tool lists time-series matching a PromQL selector, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_labels which list labels.
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 description implies usage for listing series but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like query_metrics or list_labels. No exclusions or guidance are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares a read operation (query) but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authorization needs. The return type is described, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.
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?
The description is structured with Args and Returns sections, no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable.
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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs well. It could briefly contrast with query_metrics for clarity, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter in detail (e.g., start/end as RFC 3339 or Unix timestamp, step as duration string or float seconds). The schema lacks descriptions, so the description adds critical meaning 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 'Run a PromQL range query against Thanos.' It specifies the resource (Thanos), action (range query), and distinguishes from sibling tools like query_metrics which likely perform instant queries.
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 description implies use for range queries vs. instant queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like query_metrics or Loki-based tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameters and return type but does not disclose potential behaviors like handling of missing labels, time range filtering details, or performance characteristics.
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?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose followed by formatted parameter and return explanations. No unnecessary content.
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 the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers parameters and return type. It misses potential edge cases or limitations, but overall is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds significant value by explaining each parameter with examples and clarifying optional time range usage. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool lists available values for a given Loki label, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_loki_labels which lists label names, not values.
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 description implies usage for fetching values of a specific label but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_loki_labels or list_labels. No when-not or recommendation is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or read-only nature. It only states it returns a JSON payload. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but lacks explicit safety context.
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?
The description is concise, uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema beyond 'JSON payload', the description covers inputs and return value adequately. It could briefly explain the concept of an 'instant' query or mention limitations like paging, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: query (LogQL expression), limit (range and default), and at (timestamp format and default). This adds significant value beyond the schema's typed definition.
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?
Description clearly states the tool runs a Loki instant query through Grafana datasource proxy using LogQL. The purpose is specific: return matching log entries from an instant query. It distinguishes from siblings like list_loki_labels and query_loki_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for point-in-time queries via 'instant' and default timestamp 'now'. However, no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over query_loki_logs (range) or query_metrics is given, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool goes through a proxy, returns a JSON payload with logs, and documents all parameters. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but overall it is transparent for a read-only query tool.
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?
The description is concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet list of args and return value. No extraneous information, every line adds value. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 five parameters and an output schema, the description covers all inputs and the return type. It omits potential limitations (e.g., max time range) and authentication context, but provides enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter details: query syntax example, limit range (1-5000), direction options with defaults, and start/end format (RFC 3339 or Unix nanosecond). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool performs a range query on Loki logs via the Grafana datasource proxy, distinguishing it from siblings like query_loki_instant (for instant queries) and list_loki_labels (for metadata). The verb 'Run' and specific resource 'Loki range query' provide precise purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying 'range query' versus instant queries, and the parameter details for start/end make the usage context clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_loki_instant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return value structure ('JSON payload with resultType and result') and default behavior for time ('now when omitted'). It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but the read-only nature is implied. For a simple query tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is very concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by structured parameter explanations and return value description. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers core functionality. It explains the return JSON structure and parameter semantics. Minor omissions like error handling or rate limits are acceptable for a straightforward query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: query with a concrete PromQL example, time with explicit format options (RFC 3339 and Unix timestamps) and default behavior. This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.
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 'Run an instant PromQL query against Thanos.' It specifies the verb (Run), the resource (PromQL query), and the scope (instant, as opposed to range queries). The differentiation from siblings like query_metrics_range and the Loki tools is implicit through the naming and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides examples for both parameters (query and time) and explains optional timestamp formats. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like query_metrics_range or Loki tools. The guidance is adequate for parameter usage but could be improved with direct alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![observability-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThainaJardim/observability-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThainaJardim/observability-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![observability-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThainaJardim/observability-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThainaJardim/observability-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ThainaJardim/observability-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server