Provides read-only access to Prometheus instant queries, active alerts, and target health with bounded query lengths and response sizes.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Prometheus Safe MCP Check the current CPU usage across all nodes."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A focused, read-only MCP server for bounded Prometheus instant queries, active alerts, and target health. Alpha: tests use synthetic HTTP responses; compatibility with a live Prometheus release is not certified.
Requires Python 3.11+ and uv.
uv sync --extra test
export PROMETHEUS_SAFE_URL=https://prometheus.example.invalid
uv run prometheus-safe-mcpThe process speaks MCP over stdio. It does not load .env; .env.example is documentation only. Configure the URL of a read-only, network-restricted Prometheus endpoint.
Related MCP server: Prometheus MCP Server
All tools use HTTP GET. Query length, HTTP duration/bytes, and returned target count are bounded. Configuration rejects URL credentials, queries, fragments, and non-HTTP schemes. Audit records contain operation categories rather than PromQL text or response bodies. This does not replace upstream authentication, authorization, or egress policy. See security design.
uv run --extra test pytest
uv run python -m compileall -q src tests
uv buildMIT © 2026 Ben Gauger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0active_alertsprometheus_querytarget_healthScored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct aspect of Prometheus: querying metrics, listing active alerts, and checking target health. There is no functional overlap between them, making tool selection unambiguous.
All three tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a noun-like pattern (prometheus_query, active_alerts, target_health). The names are predictable and reflect their purpose without mixing conventions.
Three tools is a lean but reasonable count for a minimal Prometheus integration, covering the most common read-only operations. It feels slightly thin for a full-featured server but is appropriate for a focused purpose.
The surface covers core operations (query, alerts, health) but lacks obvious complementary features like range queries, alert rule management, or metric metadata retrieval. Agents may need to work around these gaps for more complex workflows.
Query OneLens cloud-cost data in natural language: breakdowns, trends, cost centers. Read-only.
Query Churn Solution cancellation-flow metrics, revenue, and feedback analytics (read-only).
Query Honeycomb observability data: traces, events, metrics, SLOs, triggers, and boards.
Query PanDev Metrics analytics and reporting data
