Skip to main content
Glama
ahmad2x4

Seq MCP Server

by ahmad2x4
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools appear to target different aspects of a Seq server (alert state, events, signals), but with only one description available for 'get-events', it's unclear how 'get-alertstate' and 'get-signals' differ in purpose. This creates some ambiguity, though the distinct names suggest separate functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tools follow a consistent 'get-[noun]' naming pattern using kebab-case, which is predictable and readable. There are no deviations in style or verb usage across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, this server feels under-scoped for a logging/monitoring domain like Seq, which typically involves more operations such as creating alerts, filtering logs, or managing signals. The count is too low to cover the apparent scope effectively.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a Seq server, lacking essential operations like creating or updating alerts, sending logs, or configuring signals. Only read-only 'get' operations are provided, which will limit agents to passive monitoring without the ability to interact or modify the system.

  • Average 1.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 3 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness1/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Tool has no description.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Tool has no description.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Tool has no description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Tool has no description.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Tool has no description.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    Tool has no description.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness1/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Tool has no description.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Tool has no description.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Tool has no description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose1/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Tool has no description.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Tool has no description.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that events are 'structured logs' and can be of types like 'information, error, debug, or critical,' but fails to specify critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a bulleted list that repeats concepts (e.g., 'analyze error patterns' appears twice). Some sentences could be more efficient, and the structure is somewhat repetitive, though it remains reasonably focused.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and explicit sibling tool differentiation. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying filtering and analysis capabilities, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve and analyze a list of events filtered by parameters,' which specifies the verb (retrieve/analyze) and resource (events). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on events rather than alerts or signals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

    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 explicit usage scenarios (investigate logged events, analyze error patterns) and implies context (SEQ server events). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'get-alertstate' or 'get-signals,' and doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites.

    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

mcp-server-seq MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-seq MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/ahmad2x4/mcp-server-seq'

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