Servidor MCP para los endpoints de la API de Seq para interactuar con su sistema de registro y supervisión. Este servidor proporciona acceso integral a las funciones de la API de Seq a través del Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP).
get_signals - Obtener señales con opciones de filtrado
Filtrar por ID de propietario
Filtrar señales compartidas/privadas
Soporte para coincidencias parciales
get_events - Recuperar eventos con amplias opciones de filtrado
Filtrar por IDs de señal
Expresiones de filtro personalizadas
Recuento de eventos configurable (máximo 50)
Opciones flexibles de rango de tiempo
Filtrado por rango de fechas
get_alert_state - Recuperar el estado actual de las alertas
signals - Listar todas las señales compartidas con información detallada
ID de señal
Título
Descripción
Estado de compartición
Información del propietario
Related MCP server: Overwatch MCP
El servidor requiere las siguientes variables de entorno:
SEQ_BASE_URL (opcional): La URL de su servidor Seq (por defecto 'http://localhost:8080')
SEQ_API_KEY (obligatorio): Su clave de API de Seq
Este repositorio incluye una habilidad de Claude para el análisis de registros de Seq y la investigación de incidentes. Una vez conectado el servidor MCP, la habilidad guía a Claude a través de investigaciones estructuradas (comprobaciones de estado, triaje de incidentes, supervisión posterior al despliegue) y genera informes coherentes y procesables.
Instalar la habilidad:
# From the releases page, download seq-ops.skill, then:
claude skill install seq-ops.skillO instálela directamente desde este repositorio:
npx skills add ahmad2x4/mcp-server-seqLa habilidad se activa automáticamente cuando pregunta cosas como "morning health check", "something is broken in prod", "check the logs for timeouts" o "investigate the PPSR integration".
Ejecute el siguiente comando para añadir el servidor:
claude mcp add --transport stdio \
--env SEQ_BASE_URL=http://localhost:5341 \
--env SEQ_API_KEY=your-api-key \
seq -- npx -y mcp-seqPara compartir la configuración con su equipo, utilice la bandera --scope project (se guarda en .mcp.json):
claude mcp add --transport stdio --scope project \
--env SEQ_BASE_URL=http://localhost:5341 \
--env SEQ_API_KEY=your-api-key \
seq -- npx -y mcp-seqUsuarios de Windows: Reemplace
npx -y mcp-seqconcmd /c npx -y mcp-seqpara evitar errores de "Connection closed".
Verifique que el servidor esté conectado ejecutando /mcp dentro de Claude Code.
Añada a su claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"seq": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-seq"],
"env": {
"SEQ_BASE_URL": "your-seq-url",
"SEQ_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}
}Instalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el servidor:
npm run buildPara el desarrollo con reconstrucción automática:
npm run devEjecutar pruebas:
npm run test-scriptLa herramienta get-events admite las siguientes opciones de rango de tiempo:
1m - Último minuto
15m - Últimos 15 minutos
30m - Últimos 30 minutos
1h - Última hora
2h - Últimas 2 horas
6h - Últimas 6 horas
12h - Últimas 12 horas
1d - Último día
7d - Últimos 7 días
14d - Últimos 14 días
30d - Últimos 30 días
Instalar globalmente a través de npm:
npm install -g mcp-seqO utilícelo directamente con npx — no requiere instalación (como se muestra en los ejemplos de configuración anteriores).
Dado que los servidores MCP se comunican a través de stdio, la depuración puede ser un desafío. El servidor implementa un manejo de errores y registro adecuados para todas las operaciones. Puede ejecutar el script de prueba para verificar la funcionalidad:
npm run test-scriptEl servidor implementa una seguridad de tipos integral utilizando:
TypeScript para la comprobación de tipos estáticos
Validación de esquemas Zod para la comprobación de tipos en tiempo de ejecución
Manejo de errores y formato de respuesta adecuados
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Retrieve and analyze a list of event filtered by parameters. Use this tool when you need to:
Investigate events that are being logged in the SEQ server
Details of each event is a structured log and can provide usefull information
Events could be information, error, debug, or critical
Analyze error patterns and frequencies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | No | Comma-separated list of signal IDs | |
| filter | No | Filter expression for events | |
| count | No | Number of events to return (max 20) | |
| fromDateUtc | No | Start date/time in UTC | |
| toDateUtc | No | End date/time in UTC | |
| range | No | Time range (e.g., 1m, 15m, 1h, 1d, 7d) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ownerId | No | Owner ID to filter signals by | |
| shared | No | Whether to include only shared signals (true) or private signals (false) | |
| partial | No | Whether to include partial signal matches |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get-alertstate1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseget-events3 fields changedInput schema / properties / count / defaultPrevious value: -100New value: +20Input schema / properties / count / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of events to return (max 100)"New value: +"Number of events to return (max 20)"Input schema / properties / count / maximumPrevious value: -100New value: +20get-alertstateget-eventsget-signalsScored across 3 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.
MCP server for AI access to SmartBear tools, including BugSnag, Reflect, Swagger, PactFlow, QTM4J.
Analytics and debugging for your MCP server — explore usage and sessions, then root-cause errors.
MCP server for the Seline Analytics API
