Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ellmos-servercommander-mcp

ellmos-servercommander-mcp

Official
by ellmos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sc_logs_analyze

Analyze Apache or Nginx access logs from inline text or a local file path to identify top paths and optionally save a JSON report.

Instructions

Analyze Apache/Nginx access logs from inline text or a local file path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sc_logs_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoLog format hint.
log_pathNoLocal access-log file path.
log_textNoInline access-log text.
top_pathsNoNumber of top paths to include.
report_nameNoOptional report filename stem.
persist_reportNoPersist the analysis summary as a JSON report.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-alpha.21

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only the input sources. It says nothing about whether the tool writes anything to disk (relevant given persist_report and report_name), what permissions or file access are required, or how results are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; scope and input modes are stated immediately with no filler.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It omits what the analysis yields and the side effect of persisting a report, but the schema covers the individual parameters so the gap is moderate rather than critical.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including format, log_path, log_text, top_paths, report_name, and persist_report. The description only restates the two input modes and adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (Apache/Nginx access logs), plus the two input modes (inline text or local file path). This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like sc_deploy and sc_mail_send, though it does not describe what the analysis produces.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the tool name and the two accepted input sources, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of preconditions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools