Un servidor MCP enfocado y de solo lectura para consultas instantáneas acotadas de Prometheus, alertas activas y salud de objetivos. Alfa: las pruebas usan respuestas HTTP sintéticas; no se certifica la compatibilidad con una versión en vivo de Prometheus.
Requiere Python 3.11+ y uv.
uv sync --extra test
export PROMETHEUS_SAFE_URL=https://prometheus.example.invalid
uv run prometheus-safe-mcpEl proceso habla MCP sobre stdio. No carga .env; .env.example es solo documentación. Configure la URL de un endpoint de Prometheus de solo lectura y restringido a la red.
Related MCP server: Prometheus MCP Server
Todas las herramientas usan HTTP GET. La longitud de la consulta, la duración/bytes de HTTP y el número de objetivos devueltos están acotados. La configuración rechaza credenciales, consultas, fragmentos y esquemas no HTTP en las URL. Los registros de auditoría contienen categorías de operación en lugar de texto PromQL o cuerpos de respuesta. Esto no reemplaza la autenticación, autorización o política de salida ascendentes. Consulte diseño de seguridad.
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
