Log10x MCP Server

Official

by log-10x

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Baseline readiness

log10x_baseline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify readiness before running cost-reduction tools. Checks reporter age, pattern-coverage stability, and acute anomalies, returning specific failed gates to prevent invalid savings estimates.

Instructions

Pre-flight readiness gate for cost-reduction tools. Verifies Reporter age (default 7d), pattern-coverage stability, and absence of acute anomalies before configure_engine / estimate_savings should run. Returns structured not_ready with the specific gate(s) that failed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	Output format. Always "summary" — the typed envelope. Field retained for backward-compat with callers that still pass `view: "summary"`.	summary
`horizon`	No	Lookback window for the baseline. 30d is the default and what `recommended_target_range` is calibrated against; 90d trades freshness for stability on lower-volume tenants.	30d
`destination`	No	Destination SIEM. Required to project dollar baselines and decide which top contributors are compactable. Auto-detected from `env.analyzer` when omitted; falls back to `not_ready/no_destination` if neither is available.
`environment`	No	Environment nickname for multi-env setups.
`statedDailyGb`	No	Customer-stated daily SIEM ingest in GB. When supplied, the coverage gate compares observed bytes against this number; ≥80% passes, <80% returns `not_ready/coverage_low`. Omit to skip the coverage gate (the result still surfaces observed coverage as informational).
`monthly_volume_gb`	No	What-if volume lens (forecast mode): model the environment at THIS monthly volume (decimal GB/month) instead of its measured volume. The real per-pattern shares and pattern mix are held fixed; only absolute bytes and dollars scale, by one uniform factor. Use it to project a prospect onto their own scale, or to forecast a real env after growth. Pairs with siem_lens. This is a PROJECTION: the envelope stamps volume_actual_gb vs volume_projected_gb and the scale factor, and the note points at the POC for the caller real patterns.
`effectiveIngestPerGb`	No	Customer-negotiated $/GB for the destination. When supplied, baseline dollar projections use this rate and `rate_source` resolves to `customer_supplied`. Omit to fall back to vendors.json list pricing for the resolved destination (`rate_source: list_price`); omit BOTH this and `destination` to get a percent-first envelope (`rate_source: unset`, dollar fields null).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	No
`tool`	Yes
`view`	No	summary
`images`	No
`actions`	No
`summary`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`truncated`	No
`next_cursor`	No
`render_hint`	No
`generated_at`	Yes
`schema_epoch`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.30.7Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: default 7d Reporter window, coverage-stability and anomaly gates, and the failure contract (structured `not_ready` listing which gates failed). It doesn't specify latency or gate-combination logic, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: role first, then what it verifies, then the return contract. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it nonetheless names the key `not_ready` outcome. Combined with the rich param schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only minor gate-interaction detail is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter richly (horizon calibration, coverage gate threshold, projection semantics). The description body adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'default 7d,' so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource set ('Verifies Reporter age, pattern-coverage stability, absence of acute anomalies') and frames its role precisely as a 'pre-flight readiness gate.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tools it gates (configure_engine / estimate_savings).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context: run this before configure_engine / estimate_savings. However, it stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g., what to do if already run, or how it relates to sibling readiness tools like dependency_check or env_validate).

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

Deploy Server