Tideways MCP Server

Get observations

tideways_get_observations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a project's automatic findings, including PHP configuration issues and code bottlenecks, for a quick health check or optimization ideas.

Instructions

Automatic findings Tideways made for a project: PHP configuration problems (e.g. OPcache buffers, timeouts) and code bottlenecks detected in traces (e.g. N+1 queries, sleep, waits). Use for a quick health check or optimization ideas. Findings do not name the affected requests, and the API cannot filter traces by bottleneck: give the user the link, whose page in the Tideways UI lists recent affected traces. Do not infer N+1 queries from slow-SQL issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Tideways project as "project" or "organization/project". Defaults to the defaultProject that tideways_list_projects reports; call it for valid names.
`service`	No	Service, e.g. "web" or "worker". Defaults to the configured service, else the project's default service. A project can have several services; tideways_list_services lists them. When results come back, an unknown name fails with an error.
`environment`	No	Environment, e.g. "production" or "staging". Defaults to the configured environment, else production; criteria.environment (traces: each trace's environment) shows which was used. When results come back, an unknown name fails with an error.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`criteria`	Yes
`observations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing real limitations: findings do not name affected requests and the API cannot filter traces by bottleneck. It also prescribes the workaround (give the user the link, whose UI page lists recent affected traces). This is exactly the kind of operational caveat annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then usage context, then caveats — a sensible information hierarchy. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the density is justified for a tool whose limitations matter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers the tool's behavioral limits and the recommended follow-up action. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the sibling-routing gap keeping it below 5.

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 project/service/environment semantics (defaults, error-on-unknown, cross-references to tideways_list_projects/services) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: automatic findings (PHP config problems and code bottlenecks) that Tideways produced for a project. The concrete examples (OPcache buffers, timeouts, N+1 queries, sleeps, waits) make the output identifiable and separate it from performance/metric siblings such as tideways_get_performance.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ("quick health check or optimization ideas") and warns against misuse ("Do not infer N+1 queries from slow-SQL issues"). It does not, however, name a sibling alternative (e.g. tideways_list_issues or tideways_search_traces) to route the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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

Deploy Server