Skip to main content
Glama
yunusemregul

dynatrace-bridge-mcp

by yunusemregul

analyze_failures

Identify why a service's requests fail in a time window: get failure reasons ranked by failed requests, with HTTP statuses, exception classes, and the requests affected.

Instructions

Explains why requests of a service fail in a time window (Dynatrace failure analysis): the failure reasons ranked by failed requests, each with its type, HTTP status, share of all failures, the exception classes and messages behind it (with the top stack frames), failed downstream calls, and the requests it affects.

Start here for "why does this service fail": use it when a service shows a failure rate or a problem names it. Pass service as an id or a name. The shared trace filters (response_time_min_ms, response_time_max_ms, http_code, failed, http_method, request, request_group_id, url_contains, request_kind, raw_filters) narrow the analysed requests. Follow up with list_traces (failed: true, optionally http_code) for the individual failing traces, or top_exceptions for exception counts.

This tool runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser. If it fails, report the error to the user; do not try to open browser tabs or use browser automation instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of failure reasons to print. Default 10, at most 50. The output says how many were omitted.
failedNotrue = only failed requests, false = only successful requests. Omit for both.
requestNoOne request (endpoint, SQL statement, job) of `service`: its name or a part of the name (e.g. '/cart/checkout'), or its SERVICE_METHOD-… id. A name is looked up among the requests of `service` (one extra request), so it needs `service`; several matches return the candidates instead of guessing. An id works without a lookup.
serviceYesThe service, as an entity id (SERVICE-1234567890ABCDEF) or a name. A name that matches several entities returns the candidates instead of guessing.
time_toNoAbsolute end time, ISO 8601; without a zone it is read as UTC. Without time_from, the window starts minutes_lookback before this. Must not be in the future.
http_codeNoHTTP response code filter: one code ('404'), a class ('4xx', '5xx') or a range ('400-599').
time_fromNoAbsolute start time, ISO 8601 (e.g. '2026-09-23T10:28:00Z'). A timestamp without a zone (Z or ±hh:mm) is read as UTC. Without time_to, the window runs from here to now. Must not be in the future.
environmentNoWhich Dynatrace environment to query, as named in the Dynatrace Bridge extension popup. Omit it for the default, the first environment configured there. The names are not listed here because the extension had not connected yet when this description was built; `dynatrace_bridge_status` lists them.
http_methodNoHTTP method of the request.
raw_filtersNoEscape hatch for servicefilter types without a dedicated argument. Each entry is {type, values}; type is a numeric id or one of CPU_TIME, CALL_INSTANCE_ID, CALL_TREE, CALL_URI, CALL_TAG, WAIT_TIME, SYNC_TIME, SUSPENSION_TIME, CALLEE, CALLER, PROXY, SERVICE_ID, EXCEPTION, DATABASE_STATEMENT, DATABASE_TABLE, FLAWS, DISK_IO_TIME, NETWORK_IO_TIME, NUMBER_OF_DB_CALLS, NUMBER_OF_NON_DB_CALLS, TIME_SPENT_IN_DB_CALLS, TIME_SPENT_IN_NON_DB_CALLS, TRACE_ID, THREAD_NAME, PROCESSING_TIME, DATABASE_VENDOR, DATABASE_NAME, ENTITY_TAG, PG_NAME, PG_TAG, DATABASE_ROW_COUNT, DATABASE_FETCH_COUNT, WEBREQUEST_HOSTNAME, KEY_REQUEST, RELEASE, BUILD, STAGE, PRODUCT, SPAN_NAME, SPAN_ATTRIBUTE, ENTRY_POINT. Value formats of these types are not verified; time values are microseconds.
request_kindNoweb = only requests of web request and web services (HTTP endpoints, including calls to unmonitored hosts); database = only SQL statements. Omit for every kind (also background activity, custom and messaging services).
stack_framesNoStack frames shown per exception. Default 3, at most 30.
url_containsNoOnly web requests whose URL contains this text. The quick way to filter by a URL path fragment (e.g. '/checkout') without knowing the service or the request: it works with or without `service`. It matches nothing for non-web requests (SQL statements, cron jobs, messaging, custom services), which have no URL; use `request` for those.
minutes_lookbackNoWindow length in minutes. Default 120. With neither time_from nor time_to it means the last N minutes up to now; with only time_to it means the N minutes ending at time_to; ignored when time_from is given. The response header always shows the resolved absolute UTC window.
request_group_idNoA request type as a SERVICE_METHOD_GROUP-… id. For a 'Requests to unmonitored hosts' service this id is the target host (printed by list_service_requests; there the host name can also be passed as `request`).
request_group_nameNoDisplay name belonging to request_group_id, exactly as printed next to the id. Pass it together with request_group_id.
response_time_max_msNoOnly requests whose response time is at most this many milliseconds.
response_time_min_msNoOnly requests whose response time is at least this many milliseconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser, and on failure the agent must report the error rather than fall back to browser automation. It does not state read-only guarantees, rate limits, or expected latency, but the environment/transport caveat is high-value context that no structured field provides.

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 purpose, then usage, then follow-ups, then the transport caveat -- the ordering an agent needs. No sentence is filler, though the first sentence is a long enumeration and the filter list partly restates schema names, adding minor redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, and it does: ranked failure reasons with type, status, failure share, exception classes/messages plus top stack frames, failed downstream calls, and affected requests. Combined with usage routing and the extension dependency, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 18 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping the shared trace filters (response_time_min_ms, http_code, failed, request, url_contains, request_kind, raw_filters) and stating their collective effect -- they narrow the analysed requests -- and by restating that `service` accepts an id or a name.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Explains why requests of a service fail in a time window') and enumerates the exact output shape (ranked failure reasons, type, HTTP status, failure share, exception classes/messages with stack frames, failed downstream calls). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like top_exceptions and list_traces, which it explicitly frames as complementary.

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?

Gives an explicit entry condition ('Start here for "why does this service fail": use it when a service shows a failure rate or a problem names it') and names the follow-up alternatives with the arguments that select them (list_traces with failed:true/http_code, top_exceptions for counts). This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern done well.

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