grafana-mcp-adapter

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Grafana operation: health check, datasource listing, dashboard search and retrieval, general querying, and a specialized logs link builder. No functional overlap exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'grafana_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (get_dashboard, list_datasources, search_dashboards). Exceptions like 'health' (noun) and 'logs_link' (noun_noun) are minor inconsistencies within an otherwise coherent scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers the essential read-only Grafana operations without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose and earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core read-only functionality: health, datasources, dashboards, querying, and logs linking. Missing are alerting and annotations, but the surface is complete for common exploration tasks and tools are well-connected (e.g., search_dashboards feeds get_dashboard).
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only' but does not specify what exact information the check returns (health vs config details). Minimal transparency.
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?
Extremely concise: one short sentence that conveys the essential purpose. 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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple health check, the description is adequate but could mention what information is returned (e.g., 'returns health status and config summary').
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning since there are none. Baseline score is appropriate.
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 'Read-only Grafana health/config check', using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Grafana health/config'). It distinguishes from siblings like grafana_query or grafana_get_dashboard.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The function is self-evident as a health check, but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description calls it 'read-only', implying safety, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, concise, front-loaded with key info. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains output content (full JSON with panels, variables, queries, meta) despite no output schema. Mentions prerequisite step. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or size limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no description for 'uid'. Description adds that uid is the dashboard identifier and should come from search results, compensating for low schema coverage.
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 specifies a read-only fetch of a Grafana dashboard's full JSON by uid, listing contained elements (panels, variables, queries, meta). It differentiates from sibling tools by indicating uid source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states to get uid from grafana_search_dashboards, providing a clear prerequisite. Does not list exclusions or alternatives but contextualizes usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' indicating no mutation, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination, case sensitivity of subtitle search, or what happens when no query/tags are provided (likely returns all dashboards within limits). The limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second links to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and how to proceed for full details. Missing details like result count or explicit handling of empty search are minor gaps for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (tags and query described, limit not). The description combines query and tags with 'and/or', clarifying how they interact, which adds meaning beyond the schema. Limit is not addressed but has clear constraints in schema.
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 performs a read-only search of Grafana dashboards by title substring and/or tags, and lists the returned fields (uid, title, folder, tags, url). This distinguishes it from the sibling grafana_get_dashboard, which fetches full dashboard JSON.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides the agent to use grafana_get_dashboard with the uid for full dashboard details, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool, e.g., if needing other data types or filtering by fields not supported.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the tool is 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses that the tool does not mutate state. It also mentions the return fields, adding transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and a second sentence providing a usage hint. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It states the read-only nature, the returned fields, and a practical usage hint. No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter information because there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is a 'Read-only list of configured Grafana datasources' and specifies the returned fields (uid, name, type, is_default). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grafana_query and grafana_get_dashboard by focusing solely on datasource listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage hint: 'Use a datasource uid with grafana_query,' which indicates a common workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but given the sibling tools are all distinct (no other list tool), this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that client/component matching is case-insensitive against service_name label, default range is 1 hour, and the return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single paragraph front-loaded with purpose, but includes procedural details. Could be slightly more structured, but remains concise given the information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes the return object with fields like query, explore_url, range, preview_count, preview, compensating for lack of output schema. Context with siblings is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond the schema: explains how client and component map to service_name, that from/to have defaults, and that line_filter matches substrings. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but description adds value.
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 builds a permanent Grafana Explore link for logs and returns a preview of recent lines. It identifies the customer/component using free text, distinguishing itself from sibling query tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidelines on pasting the URL into a ticket and warns about widening the range due to large logs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like grafana_query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses read-only nature, potential for large raw frames, and default digest format. This covers safety and size risks.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and endpoint, second and third provide usage and behavior. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return format (digest vs raw). Covers all required and optional parameters, references another tool, and mentions query language variations. Complete for a query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 83% description coverage; description adds value by explaining datasource_uid source, expr language types, optional time range, and raw effect. Slight improvement over schema alone.
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 it is a 'Read-only metric/log query' via a specific API endpoint, with verb 'query' and resource 'metric/log'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grafana_health or grafana_search_dashboards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit prerequisite (datasource uid from grafana_list_datasources), explains the raw parameter trade-off, and suggests default time range. It does not explicitly say when not to use but gives enough context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![grafana-mcp-adapter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/enrique-pastrana/grafana-mcp-adapter/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/enrique-pastrana/grafana-mcp-adapter)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![grafana-mcp-adapter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/enrique-pastrana/grafana-mcp-adapter/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/enrique-pastrana/grafana-mcp-adapter)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/enrique-pastrana/grafana-mcp-adapter'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server