Query trace data by time range or metadata filter to retrieve relevant LLM traces for analysis and troubleshooting.
Run a structured query over trace data by time range or metadata filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| end_time | No | ISO8601 end time | |
| start_time | No | ISO8601 start time | |
| project_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs a query, but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether results are paginated, whether there are limits, or what the query behavior is beyond filtering.
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 a single focused sentence with no wasted words. The core action and key filtering dimensions are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an overlapping sibling set, the description leaves meaningful gaps: it does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from get_traces, or what 'metadata filter' maps to. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools to make a reliable selection.
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?
Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents start_time, end_time, and status. The description adds a useful mapping by categorizing the filters as 'time range or metadata filter,' but project_name remains undocumented and the description does not clarify its role beyond what the schema implies.
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 a specific verb ('Run a structured query') and resource ('trace data'), and specifies filtering by time range or metadata filter. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_traces', which likely serves a very similar purpose.
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 implies the tool is for querying traces with time or metadata filters, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_traces or get_spans. No exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case boundaries are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.