Skip to main content
Glama
nerdit-ai

Nerdit

Official
by nerdit-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_events

Read the daemon's durable feed of autonomous transitions to audit what just happened or replay events forward from a known ID.

Instructions

Use when: you need the daemon's own account of what it just did.

    The durable feed of autonomous transitions (``service.failed``,
    ``service.degraded``, ``service.deploy_succeeded``, ``model.ready``,
    ...), readable by any authenticated token. Two directions, and picking
    the wrong one walks the wrong way through history.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows in one page, clamped to [1, 200] here and server-side; omit for 50.
typesNoComma-separated event types to keep (e.g. ``service.failed,model.ready``); only the first 10 entries are honoured. Omit for every type.
cursorNoBrowse **backwards** from here (id DESC, newest first): pass the previous page's ``next_cursor`` to see what just happened. Omit for the newest page; passing it together with ``since_id`` is a 400.
serviceNoKeep only events for this exact service name; omit for every service.
since_idNoReplay **forwards** from this event id (id ASC, rows with id > it) — the resume mode after processing up to that id. Omit to browse backwards instead; passing it together with ``cursor`` is a 400. To keep replaying forward, pass the page's ``next_cursor`` back as ``since_id``, never as ``cursor``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavioral facts: the feed is durable, it is autonomous-transition oriented, and it is readable by any authenticated token (auth requirement). It omits return shape and retention/pagination behavior, and the "two directions" warning is stated so elliptically that it doesn't say which parameter goes which way.

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 a "Use when:" clause and kept to three short sentences with no filler. The phrase "picking the wrong one walks the wrong way through history" is atmospheric rather than precise, costing a bit of clarity for its length.

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?

For a five-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth scope, durability, and the directionality trap. What's missing is minor: the vocabulary of event types is only sampled, and nothing is said about what a returned page contains beyond the schema's next_cursor reference.

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 explains limit clamping, type filtering, and the cursor/since_id mutual exclusion with 400 errors. The description reinforces the bidirectional model but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Describes the tool concretely as the durable feed of autonomous daemon transitions, with example event types (service.failed, model.ready) that make the resource tangible. It implicitly separates itself from service_logs and get_audit by emphasizing daemon-level events readable by any token, but never names those siblings, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

"Use when: you need the daemon's own account of what it just did" gives a clear triggering condition, and the note about two directions warns that argument choice changes traversal. No explicit when-not or named alternative among the many log/audit siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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