list_streamsList Graylog streams the token can read, optionally including paused streams, to discover available log sources and their IDs for queries.
Streams (id, title, description) the token can read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | Graylog instance (environment) from list_instances, e.g. 'staging' or 'prod'; the default instance when omitted | |
| include_disabled | No | Also list paused streams |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds one piece of behavioral context — that results are limited to what the token can read — but says nothing about return format or pagination, so it clears the lowered bar only modestly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short with no wasted words; the field list is front-loaded. The sentence-fragment style is terse to the point of under-specification, which keeps it just below a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin — it omits any mention of pagination or result limits and gives no usage routing, leaving gaps an agent must infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (instance, include_disabled) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb and resource ('Streams ... the token can read') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, description). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with list_instances, list_fields, or list_presets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. The only implicit context is the 'token can read' scoping, which hints at permissions but does not route the agent among sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.