Log10x MCP Server

Official

by log-10x

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Commitment report

log10x_commitment_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Produces weekly reports on delivered data volume and cost against a commitment, with 90-day projections, and requires a baseline commitment record.

Instructions

Weekly aggregate against a commitment record opened by log10x_configure_engine. Reports delivered bytes (and dollars at the contract rate where the contract allows), projects the next 90 days from a weak Beta(2,2) prior updated with weekly evidence, 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

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

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.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.30.8Oct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / service / description

Previous value: -"Service name to resolve a commitment by — used when commitment_id is omitted. When both are present, commitment_id wins."New value: +"Service name to resolve a commitment by: used when commitment_id is omitted. When both are present, commitment_id wins."

First observedv1.30.7Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds the important non-obvious precondition (the tool is useless without a prior configure_engine apply) and the projection methodology (Beta(2,2) prior updated with weekly evidence). It does not discuss rate limits or output size, but the precondition disclosure is the key behavioral context and it is present.

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?

Three sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by outputs, then the hard precondition. Dense but no filler; the Beta(2,2) methodology detail is arguably more than an agent needs to select the tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, outputs, and the critical prerequisite. The only gap is that the one-line summary downplays the format=weekly_digest operational-digest mode, which the schema carries, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the format enum variants and the commitment_id-over-service precedence. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or precedence rules beyond what the schema states, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Weekly aggregate against a commitment record') plus its three concrete outputs (delivered bytes/dollars, 90-day projection, markdown summary). No sibling tool in the list does commitment-relative reporting, and the description makes that scope obvious 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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('REQUIRES a commitment record opened by a prior configure_engine apply; without one there is no baseline') and names the sibling that creates it. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for the no-commitment case, so the agent must infer the fallback itself.

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

Deploy Server