Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spring Toolkit MCP

Spring Toolkit MCP

by giaffa86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_http_traces

Retrieve HTTP request and response traces from Spring Boot Actuator endpoints for monitoring and debugging.

Instructions

Read /actuator/httpexchanges or /actuator/httptrace.

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": "get_http_traces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description indicates a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the endpoint is unavailable. The single verb 'Read' is insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is generally good, but it sacrifices essential information about parameters and behavior. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It lacks details on parameter usage, return format, and potential limitations, making it incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has one parameter ('application') with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should add meaning but fails to explain the parameter's purpose or format.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific actuator endpoints (/actuator/httpexchanges or /actuator/httptrace), which provides a clear purpose and differentiates it from other tools that might read different actuator endpoints.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_health_status or list_endpoints. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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