log-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_errors

Group similar log errors by fingerprint, deduplicate entries, count frequencies, and extract stack traces to identify recurring issues.

Instructions

Analyze error entries: deduplicate by fingerprint, count frequencies, extract stack traces.

Groups similar error messages together even when they differ in numbers, IDs, or timestamps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_errors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`include_stack_traces`	No
`max_unique_errors`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers core behaviors (deduplication, frequency counting, stack trace extraction, grouping) but omits side effects, permission needs, or rate limits. The disclosed behaviors are helpful but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists primary actions, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the tool has 3 parameters, the description provides a solid high-level overview but lacks details about input file format, error pattern expectations, or limitations. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains include_stack_traces by mentioning stack trace extraction, but file_path and max_unique_errors receive no explanation beyond their names. This leaves a significant gap for the latter two parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze error entries by deduplicating via fingerprint, counting frequencies, and extracting stack traces. It also highlights the non-obvious grouping of similar messages, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_stats or classify_lines. No when-not scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit context.

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

Deploy Server