Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
honeycomb-mcp-server

honeycomb-mcp-server

by kajirita2002
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

honeycomb_slo_get

Retrieve detailed information about a specific Service Level Objective (SLO) from a dataset using the dataset slug and SLO ID.

Instructions

Get information about a specific SLO

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "datasetSlug": "<datasetSlug>",
      "sloId": "<sloId>"
    },
    "name": "honeycomb_slo_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
datasetSlugYesDataset slug the SLO belongs to, or 'all'
sloIdYesSLO ID to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'information' is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned, potential error cases, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that retrieves specific SLO data, more context about the return format and usage constraints would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (datasetSlug, sloId) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get information about a specific SLO' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'information' includes and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like honeycomb_slos_list (which lists SLOs) or honeycomb_slo_update (which modifies SLOs).

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

Related Tools