Skip to main content
Glama
g-hyeong

Logging Advisor MCP

by g-hyeong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

setup_analysis_session

Starts a three-step workflow to analyze code logging quality, generate a prioritized improvement roadmap, and validate production deployment safety.

Instructions

Start code logging quality inspection and improvement

Use for requests like: "Check if logs are okay", "Improve logging", "Any issues with log code?", "Check logging before production deployment", "Too many console.log statements", "Is error logging working properly?", "Optimize logs"

Automatically handles:

  • Auto-detect logging patterns in code

  • Provide language-specific optimization suggestions (JavaScript, Python, Java, Go, etc.)

  • Validate production environment safety

  • Observability improvement guidance

3-step automated workflow: 1 Logging quality analysis → 2 Improvement roadmap generation → 3 Deployment safety validation

Settings (optional): environment, serviceCriticality, targetScore, maxChanges, focus Defaults: production environment, high criticality, 80-point target, 5 changes max, comprehensive analysis

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoAnalysis focus area - all: comprehensive analysis, patterns: logging patterns, security: security, errors: error handling, performance: performance impactall
languageNoProgramming language (optional, will provide general guidelines if not specified)
environmentNoTarget environment - production: strict standards, development: development convenience consideredproduction
serviceCriticalityNoService criticality - low: internal tools, medium: general services, high: core services, critical: financial/healthcarehigh

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automated workflow, optional settings, and defaults, but does not clarify whether it modifies code, what the output looks like, or any permission/side-effect details. This is adequate but incomplete for a setup/orchestration tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded and organized with clear sections, but it is verbose with many example phrases and a settings/defaults section that is partly incorrect. It could be tightened while retaining the useful context.

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?

For a complex orchestrator tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but omits key context: how it relates to its sibling tools, what it returns, and whether it is a prerequisite for individual analysis steps.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the description's settings list is inaccurate: it includes targetScore and maxChanges (not in the schema) and omits the language parameter. This mismatch could mislead an agent into passing unsupported arguments.

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?

The description states a clear verb (Start) and resource (code logging quality inspection and improvement), and outlines a 3-step workflow. It does not explicitly differentiate this orchestrator tool from its siblings (analyze_logging, suggest_improvements, validate_production_readiness), so it stops short of a 5.

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 many example user requests that clearly indicate when to use the tool, and lists optional settings with defaults. However, it does not state when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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