Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-loki

mcp-loki

by mgcrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Loki: Auth Status

loki_auth_status
Read-only

Reports Loki's URL, auth mode, tenant source, version, and limits like retention and query caps. Call it to verify setup, diagnose missing tools, or explain query limit failures.

Instructions

Report which Loki this server reads and whether it answers: the URL, auth mode, the tenant (and where that comes from), the Loki version, and this tenant's limits — retention, max query length, max lines per query, max series, query timeout, and whether volume and pattern endpoints are enabled. When the server is not configured, says exactly what to set. Call this first when a tool you expected is missing, when a query fails on a limit, or before trusting logs from an instance you have not checked.

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": "loki_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context: it discloses the tenant's provenance, the limit set, and that an unconfigured server results in a report of 'exactly what to set' rather than a hard failure. It stops short of saying whether an unreachable Loki yields an error or a degraded status payload, which is the one behavioral detail an agent would still want.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned fields, then the usage triggers — a sensible order. The long mid-sentence enumeration of limits is dense but each item is genuinely part of the payload, so little could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing every reported field plus the unconfigured-server case. Only the shape of the response (flat object vs. structured sections) and error-versus-report semantics when Loki is unreachable remain unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The prose correctly implies a no-argument call by never referencing inputs.

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 ('Report which Loki this server reads and whether it answers') and enumerates the exact facts returned: URL, auth mode, tenant and its source, version, and limits. It is clearly a diagnostic/configuration-introspection tool, distinguishable from the query siblings like loki_query_logs or loki_list_labels.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives three concrete triggers — a tool you expected is missing, a query failing on a limit, or before trusting logs from an unchecked instance — and says to 'call this first', which is an explicit precedence instruction. No alternative tool is named for these situations, and none is needed since this is the only auth/status tool in the sibling set.

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