Skip to main content
Glama
huanglixinccc

aliyun-sls-codex

by huanglixinccc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: search by keywords, fetch context around a timestamp, and verify connectivity. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_logs, get_context_logs, check_connection. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused log-searching utility. Each tool is essential to the core workflow of finding and examining logs.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the main workflow of searching logs and retrieving surrounding context, but lack explicit time-range controls or the ability to list available log stores. These are minor gaps that can be worked around with existing parameters or configuration.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 26 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?

    The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the concept of 'around an anchor Unix timestamp' without further behavioral details. There is no mention of log ordering, limits, or response format, but given the annotation, the baseline is met.

    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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it omits essential parameter information that is penalized in other dimensions.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations only indicating read-only, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how the anchor timestamp is passed, what the response looks like, or any edge cases, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

    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 zero properties, yet the description refers to an 'anchor Unix timestamp' that is not represented in the schema. This is a significant disconnect: the description implies a parameter that does not exist, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the timestamp.

    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 action ('Get logs') and the key concept ('around an anchor Unix timestamp'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs and check_connection. However, it lacks clarity on how the anchor timestamp is provided, which slightly detracts from full clarity.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest some context, but the description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    The description repeats 'read-only' which is already in the readOnlyHint annotation, but adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, side effects, or error behavior.

    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, direct sentence; perfectly concise and front-loaded without any fluff.

    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 simple connectivity check, the description covers the basic purpose but omits any mention of the return value or success/failure indicators, which could be useful given the lack of an output schema.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input. The description appropriately adds nothing further, earning the baseline for no-parameter tools.

    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 uses a specific verb ('check') and names the resource ('SLS connectivity'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or retrieve logs.

    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 provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the sibling log tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It simply states what it does.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds minor context about searching by content keywords, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or time range handling.

    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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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 read-only search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but gaps remain. It conveys the core operation but omits details about return values, time-range filtering, and the operator parameter, which could leave an agent uncertain about behavior beyond basic keyword matching.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'keywords' parameter ('content keywords'), leaving limit, start_time, end_time, and operator semantically unexplained beyond their raw schema definitions. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('application logs') and qualifier ('by one or more content keywords'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_context_logs and check_connection, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

    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 usage (when you need to search logs by content keywords) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_context_logs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the core use case is inferable.

    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

aliyun-log-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aliyun-log-search MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/huanglixinccc/aliyun-log-search'

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