Tideways MCP Server

Get one transaction

tideways_get_transaction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Chart a transaction's performance over time to pinpoint when it slowed and which layer caused it. Use a transaction ID to return requests, errors, latency percentiles, and per-layer timings.

Instructions

Timeline of one transaction over 1-1440 minutes ending at "end" (default now): per minute (or per bucket above 60 minutes) requests, errors, requests over the response-time target, p95/median/average and time per layer, plus totals with a response-time histogram. Use it to see when a transaction got slow and in which layer. Take transactionId from transactions[].id of tideways_get_performance.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	Last minute included, "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm" in UTC. Defaults to now.
`minutes`	No	Window length in minutes (max 1440 = 24h). Above 60 the timeline is downsampled to at most 60 points; bucketMinutes says how long each one is.
`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.
`transactionId`	Yes	Numeric transaction ID from transactions[].id of tideways_get_performance

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`totals`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`criteria`	Yes	What Tideways actually queried. Times are UTC "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm".
`timeline`	Yes
`bucketMinutes`	Yes	Minutes covered by each timeline point; null when the timeline is too short to tell

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the window cap (1-1440 minutes), downsampling above 60 minutes into buckets, the default end=now, and the rich result shape (per-minute metrics plus a response-time histogram and totals).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the timeline returns, then the diagnostic use case, then the ID source. The metric enumeration is dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still sketches them usefully, and it covers windowing, defaults, and ID provenance. It omits any mention of the project/service/environment scoping parameters, but those are fully documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the downsampling rule; baseline is 3. The description's mention of the 1-1440 range and bucketing largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, and project/service/environment scoping is left entirely to 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 states a concrete verb+resource ('Timeline of one transaction') and enumerates exactly what the timeline contains (requests, errors, p95/median/average, time per layer, histogram). It also names the sibling tool that supplies the ID, so an agent can distinguish it from tideways_get_performance and tideways_get_performance_summary.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition ('Use it to see when a transaction got slow and in which layer') and tells the agent where to obtain transactionId (transactions[].id of tideways_get_performance), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it versus get_performance_summary, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

Deploy Server