Graylog MCP Server

list_log_templates

Retrieve learned log templates from the active Graylog connection, with options to filter by label and sort by count or timestamp, to understand recurring log patterns.

Instructions

List learned log templates for the active connection.

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": "list_log_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max templates to return. Default 50.
`sortBy`	No	Sort key. Default 'count'.
`filterLabel`	No	Only return templates with this label.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral properties. It merely says 'List learned log templates', which is a read operation, but doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, sorted by default, or if any side effects occur. The 'learned' qualifier hints at origins but doesn't clarify behavior.

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 filler, but it's perhaps too brief. It could include a bit more guidance without losing conciseness. Overall, it is efficiently phrased.

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 list operation with comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is minimally viable. It provides the key scope (active connection) but lacks differentiation from sibling tools and doesn't describe return behavior, though the output schema absence is mitigated by the simplicity of the tool.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (list) and resource (learned log templates), and scopes it to the active connection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_log_template, rename_log_template, and list_connections.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like export_log_templates, nor does it mention prerequisites such as establishing a connection with use_connection. The phrase 'active connection' implies context but doesn't explain how to set it.

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