count_eventsCount Loggly events matching a search query for a time range and optionally return volume, enabling traffic analysis and event frequency checks.
Calls /apiv2/events/count to return event count and optional volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | -24h | |
| query | No | * | |
| until | No | now | |
| account | No | ||
| include_volume | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, return format, defaults, or what 'optional volume' means beyond what the schema field name already implies.
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?
Single sentence, no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the one sentence spent on the endpoint path could have been spent on meaning.
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?
5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no usage guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is present.
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 0% and the description adds nothing about any of the 5 parameters (from, query, until, account, include_volume). No syntax, format, or meaning is explained anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('return event count') but the core of the description is the API endpoint path, which is implementation detail rather than purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_events, volume_metrics, or stats_query.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus volume_metrics, get_events, or stats_query. An agent cannot infer routing from 'Calls /apiv2/events/count'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.