Skip to main content
Glama
geored

Lumino

smart_summarize_pod_logs

Analyze Kubernetes pod logs to identify errors, warnings, and performance patterns with adaptive time window selection and multi-pass processing.

Instructions

Adaptive pod log analysis with automatic volume management and multi-pass processing.

When no time constraints specified, automatically estimates volume and selects optimal time windows.

Args:
    namespace: Kubernetes namespace.
    pod_name: Pod name to analyze.
    container_name: Specific container (if multiple).
    summary_level: "brief", "detailed", or "comprehensive" (default: "detailed").
    focus_areas: Analysis focus (default: ["errors", "warnings", "performance"]).
    time_segments: Time-based segments to analyze (default: 5).
    max_context_tokens: Max tokens for analysis (default: 10000).
    since_seconds: Only if user specifies exact seconds.
    tail_lines: Only if user specifies exact line count.
    time_period: Only if user specifies period (e.g., "1h", "30m").
    start_time: Only if user specifies exact start time.
    end_time: Only if user specifies exact end time.

Returns:
    Dict[str, Any]: Log analysis with insights, patterns, and recommendations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceYes
pod_nameYes
container_nameNo
summary_levelNodetailed
focus_areasNo
time_segmentsNo
max_context_tokensNo
since_secondsNo
tail_linesNo
time_periodNo
start_timeNo
end_timeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: adaptive volume management, automatic time window selection, multi-pass processing, and default behaviors for unspecified parameters. It explains what happens when time constraints aren't specified and describes the analysis approach. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or potential side effects on the system.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, detailed parameter explanations, and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading the most critical information more prominently, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, behavioral traits, detailed parameter semantics, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The main gap is lack of explicit comparison with sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 12 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains the purpose of each parameter, provides default values, clarifies conditional usage ('Only if user specifies...'), and gives examples for enums like summary_level options. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'adaptive pod log analysis with automatic volume management and multi-pass processing' - a specific verb (analyze) and resource (pod logs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' and 'stream_analyze_pod_logs' by emphasizing adaptive volume management and multi-pass processing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools in the sibling list.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool through its adaptive features ('When no time constraints specified, automatically estimates volume...'), suggesting it's best for exploratory analysis without precise time bounds. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this versus alternatives like 'analyze_pod_logs_hybrid' or 'stream_analyze_pod_logs', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/geored/Lumino'

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