otel-mcp

send_trace

Send OpenTelemetry trace spans to OTLP endpoints for monitoring and debugging distributed systems. Specify service name, spans with attributes, and target endpoints.

Instructions

Send one or more spans to the targeted endpoints.

Each span dict accepts: name, kind (internal/server/client/producer/ consumer), attributes, duration_ms, status (ok/error/unset), status_message, events (list of {name, attributes}), parent_name (to nest spans within the same batch).

If endpoints is omitted, fans out to every endpoint that accepts traces.

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": {
      "service_name": "<service_name>",
      "spans": "<spans>"
    },
    "name": "send_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service_name`	Yes
`spans`	Yes
`resource_attributes`	No
`endpoints`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the fan-out behavior when endpoints are omitted, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output schema might contain, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key details in a logical flow. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and span structure but misses details on parameters like 'service_name', mutation implications, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the structure of 'spans' (e.g., fields like 'name', 'kind', 'attributes') and the optional 'endpoints' behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't cover 'service_name' or 'resource_attributes' in detail, but provides enough context for core usage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Send') and resource ('spans to targeted endpoints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_log' or 'send_metric' beyond mentioning 'traces' in the context.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for sending trace data to endpoints, with a note about default behavior when 'endpoints' is omitted. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'send_log' or 'send_metric', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server