Observability MCP Server

trace_mcp_calls

Records OpenTelemetry spans for MCP server calls, enabling distributed tracing and monitoring across multiple MCP servers.

Instructions

Record a trace for MCP call monitoring and distributed tracing.

Creates OpenTelemetry spans for tracking MCP server interactions, enabling distributed tracing across multiple MCP servers.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`attributes`	No	Additional attributes to include in the trace
`duration_ms`	Yes	Duration of the operation in milliseconds
`service_name`	Yes	Name of the service performing the operation
`operation_name`	Yes	Name of the operation being traced

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creates OpenTelemetry spans for tracing) but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. Enough to understand the action, but not full transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists and schema descriptions are complete, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior for a tracing tool. Minor gaps remain around safety and expected call patterns, but the definition is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Record a trace') and resource ('MCP call monitoring and distributed tracing'), and clarifies that it creates OpenTelemetry spans. It does not explicitly name siblings it differs from, but the tracing focus distinguishes it from most observability siblings.

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 context (MCP call monitoring and distributed tracing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_mcp_interactions or send_logs_to_loki. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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