ログ記録および監視システムと対話するためのSeq APIエンドポイント用MCPサーバーです。このサーバーは、Model Context Protocolを通じてSeqのAPI機能への包括的なアクセスを提供します。
get_signals - フィルタリングオプションを使用してシグナルを取得
所有者IDによるフィルタリング
共有/プライベートシグナルのフィルタリング
部分一致のサポート
get_events - 広範なフィルタリングオプションを使用してイベントを取得
シグナルIDによるフィルタリング
カスタムフィルター式
設定可能なイベント数（最大50）
柔軟な時間範囲オプション
日付範囲フィルタリング
get_alert_state - アラートの現在の状態を取得
signals - 詳細情報を含むすべての共有シグナルを一覧表示
シグナルID
タイトル
説明
共有ステータス
所有者情報
Related MCP server: Overwatch MCP
このサーバーには以下の環境変数が必要です：
SEQ_BASE_URL (オプション): SeqサーバーのURL (デフォルトは 'http://localhost:8080')
SEQ_API_KEY (必須): Seq APIキー
このリポジトリには、Seqのログ分析およびインシデント調査のためのClaudeスキルが含まれています。MCPサーバーが接続されると、このスキルは構造化された調査（ヘルスチェック、インシデントトリアージ、デプロイ後の監視など）を通じてClaudeをガイドし、一貫性のある実用的なレポートを作成します。
スキルのインストール:
# From the releases page, download seq-ops.skill, then:
claude skill install seq-ops.skillまたは、このリポジトリから直接インストールします：
npx skills add ahmad2x4/mcp-server-seqこのスキルは、「朝のヘルスチェック」、「本番環境で何かが壊れている」、「タイムアウトのログを確認して」、「PPSR統合を調査して」といった質問をすると自動的に有効になります。
以下のコマンドを実行してサーバーを追加します：
claude mcp add --transport stdio \
--env SEQ_BASE_URL=http://localhost:5341 \
--env SEQ_API_KEY=your-api-key \
seq -- npx -y mcp-seqチームと設定を共有するには、--scope projectフラグを使用します（.mcp.jsonに保存されます）：
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-seqWindowsユーザー: 「Connection closed」エラーを回避するために、
npx -y mcp-seqをcmd /c npx -y mcp-seqに置き換えてください。
Claude Code内で/mcpを実行して、サーバーが接続されていることを確認します。
claude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"seq": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-seq"],
"env": {
"SEQ_BASE_URL": "your-seq-url",
"SEQ_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}
}依存関係のインストール：
npm installサーバーのビルド：
npm run build自動リビルドを行う開発用：
npm run devテストの実行：
npm run test-scriptget-eventsツールは、以下の時間範囲オプションをサポートしています：
1m - 直近1分
15m - 直近15分
30m - 直近30分
1h - 直近1時間
2h - 直近2時間
6h - 直近6時間
12h - 直近12時間
1d - 直近1日
7d - 直近7日間
14d - 直近14日間
30d - 直近30日間
npm経由でグローバルにインストール：
npm install -g mcp-seqまたは、npxで直接使用します（インストールは不要です。上記の構成例を参照してください）。
MCPサーバーはstdio経由で通信するため、デバッグが難しい場合があります。サーバーはすべての操作に対して適切なエラー処理とログ記録を実装しています。テストスクリプトを実行して機能を確認できます：
npm run test-scriptこのサーバーは、以下を使用して包括的な型安全性を実装しています：
静的型チェックのためのTypeScript
ランタイム型チェックのためのZodスキーマ検証
適切なエラー処理とレスポンスフォーマット
| 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
