Log10x MCP Server

Official

by log-10x

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Commitment report

log10x_commitment_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a CFO-ready weekly savings report against an existing commitment record, applying a Bayesian prior and rendering markdown for sharing. Requires a prior configure_engine apply.

Instructions

CFO-facing weekly aggregate against a previously-opened commitment record. Applies a Bayesian Beta(2,2) prior to realized-savings estimates and renders a markdown summary suitable for sharing. REQUIRES a commitment record opened by a prior configure_engine apply; without one there is no baseline to report against.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	cfo_md=executive markdown with weekly chart and forward confidence; summary=typed envelope only; json=full structured data; weekly_digest=7-day operational digest from the recurring tick audit trail.	cfo_md
`period`	No	Reporting window. 30d=last 30 days, 90d=last 90 days, ytd=since Jan 1 of current year.	90d
`service`	No	Service name to resolve a commitment by — used when commitment_id is omitted. When both are present, commitment_id wins.
`environment`	No	Environment nickname; defaults to the active env.
`history_path`	No	Override path to the recurring-tick JSONL audit trail (default: $LOG10X_RECUR_HISTORY_PATH or /tmp/log10x-recur-history.jsonl). Used only when format=weekly_digest.
`commitment_id`	No	Commitment record id (created by log10x_configure_engine on PR-merge). If omitted, resolves the most recent commitment for the active service.
`action_intent_path`	No	Override path to data/action-intent.json (relative to the gitops repo root or absolute). Used only when format=weekly_digest.

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 declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a Bayesian Beta(2,2) prior is applied to savings estimates, output is a markdown summary meant for sharing, and it fails without a prior commitment record.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the tool's identity and the critical precondition front-loaded ahead of the methodology note.

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?

A read-only aggregate with 100% schema coverage and an output schema does not need return-value explanation, and the description supplies the key dependency and rendering method. Only the absence of alternative routing when no commitment exists keeps it from being fully complete.

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 enum semantics for format and period plus the service/commitment_id precedence are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to markdown/weekly rendering and adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource (weekly aggregate report against a commitment record), plus audience and cadence, so an agent can distinguish it from savings/estimate_savings siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('REQUIRES a commitment record opened by a prior configure_engine apply') and the consequence when it is absent. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. log10x_savings, log10x_estimate_savings) to route to when no commitment exists, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server