Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rlg-mcp

rlg-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Summarize rlg errors by component

summarize_errors
Read-onlyIdempotent

Group ERROR-and-above log records by component, returning counts for each. This provides a quick error taxonomy to identify failure hotspots during triage.

Instructions

Group ERROR-and-above rlg records by component and count them, giving a quick error taxonomy for triage. Use this for an at-a-glance failure breakdown; use filter_log when you need the underlying records rather than counts.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "summarize_errors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFilesystem path to an rlg log file to scan for ERROR-and-above records.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that it groups by component and only includes ERROR-and-above severity, which is useful beyond annotations.

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 purpose, no unnecessary words. Second sentence provides usage guidance with sibling tool reference.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely explains what it does, how to use it, and when to choose alternatives. Annotations cover safety.

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% for the single parameter 'path'. The description does not add new parameter details 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool groups ERROR-and-above rlg records by component and counts them, providing a quick error taxonomy. It distinguishes from sibling tool filter_log by noting it gives counts rather than underlying records.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for an at-a-glance failure breakdown') and when to use filter_log instead ('when you need the underlying records rather than counts').

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