Allows for streaming SST dev logs and controlling the SST dev process, including starting, stopping, and restarting the dev environment, as well as monitoring deployment status and Lambda invocations.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP-SST show me the latest logs from the dev process"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for streaming SST dev logs and controlling the SST dev process.
Add to Claude Code:
claude mcp add sst -- npx github:shanewwarren/mcp-sst /path/to/your/sst/projectRelated MCP server: DuploCloud Docker MCP Server
Add to ~/.claude/mcp.json (or .claude/mcp.json in your project):
{
"mcpServers": {
"sst": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"github:shanewwarren/mcp-sst",
"/path/to/your/sst/project"
]
}
}
}Tool | Description |
| List available log tabs |
| Read last N lines from a log tab |
| Get deployment status |
| Get Lambda invocations |
| Get event stream |
| Start SST dev |
| Stop SST dev |
| Restart SST dev |
| Get process status |
git clone https://github.com/shanewwarren/mcp-sst.git
cd mcp-sst
npm install
npm run build
npm start /path/to/sst/projectMIT
Discover running SST dev servers and available stages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Directory to search (defaults to cwd) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'discover' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, how it interacts with servers (e.g., network calls, permissions), or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'discover' entails (e.g., returns a list, status details), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely involves system interaction, this lack of context is a significant gap.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'directory' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why one might specify a directory or how it affects the discovery process. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('running SST dev servers and available stages'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_status' or 'sst_list_tabs', which might have overlapping discovery functions.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'sst_get_status' and 'sst_list_tabs' that might relate to server or stage information, there's no indication of when this discovery tool is preferred or what specific scenarios it addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent events from the SST dev event stream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | Listen time in ms (default: 1000) | |
| eventType | No | Filter to specific event type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get recent events' and implies a streaming/listening operation with a timeout, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes 'recent'. For a tool that likely interacts with a development event stream, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves events from a development stream. It doesn't explain the format or content of returned events, potential side effects, or how 'recent' is defined. For a tool with two parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents the parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent events from the SST dev event stream'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'recent events' which provides some scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_invocations' or 'sst_read_logs' that might also retrieve event-related data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sst_get_invocations' or 'sst_read_logs', nor does it specify prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent Lambda function invocations from SST dev.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | Listen time in ms (default: 1000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of retrieving Lambda invocations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or dependencies, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 the input schema fully documents the 'timeoutMs' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the timeout affects the retrieval process. Baseline 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent Lambda function invocations') with specific source ('from SST dev'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_read_logs', which might also retrieve related data from SST.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_read_logs'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current deployment status and resources from SST dev.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Stage name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'status and resources,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific 'resources' entail. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what 'status and resources' includes), error conditions, or dependencies. While it covers the purpose, the absence of annotations and output schema means more context is needed for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'stage' parameter documented as 'Stage name.' The description does not add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples of stage names or how they affect the output. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the target ('current deployment status and resources from SST dev'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like sst_get_events or sst_get_invocations), which likely also retrieve information from SST dev.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as sst_get_events or sst_get_invocations. There are no explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available log tabs/files from SST dev.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Stage name (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List all available log tabs/files', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output, which are important for an agent to operate effectively. This results in a score that reflects a bare-bones but not fully complete description.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'stage' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'stage' means in context or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all available log tabs/files from SST dev'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like 'sst_read_logs' or 'sst_get_events', which might also involve log-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'sst_read_logs' or 'sst_get_events' that might be related. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the last N lines from a specific SST dev log tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | Yes | Tab name (e.g., 'sst', 'ui-function', 'pulumi') | |
| lines | No | Number of lines (default: 50) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default: 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading logs with pagination via 'offset', but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a log-reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in a development context.
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 the input schema fully documents parameters like 'tab', 'lines', and 'offset'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'last N lines' and 'specific SST dev log tab', but does not provide additional syntax or format details, resulting in a baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the last N lines') and resource ('from a specific SST dev log tab'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_get_invocations', which might also involve log-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sst_get_events' or 'sst_list_tabs'. The description implies usage for reading logs but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1sst_discoversst_get_eventssst_get_invocationssst_get_statussst_list_tabssst_read_logsScored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different aspects of SST dev monitoring: discovery, events, invocations, status, log tabs, and log reading. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a perfect 'sst_verb_noun' pattern with consistent snake_case naming. The verb choices (discover, get, list, read) are appropriate and uniformly applied.
With 6 tools, this is well-scoped for monitoring SST dev servers. Each tool serves a specific monitoring function, and the count is neither too sparse nor excessive for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for monitoring SST dev environments, including discovery, status, events, invocations, and logs. A minor gap is the lack of tools for controlling or interacting with the servers (e.g., restarting or deploying), but the monitoring surface is complete.
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Develop, manage, and debug Railway projects, services, and deployments from within agents.
Manage Rivet Cloud namespaces and actors, run Code Mode, and open the Rivet Actor Inspector.
