Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FatalGuard

FatalGuard

by zinoodev85
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

list_errors

Groups PHP log errors by signature, newest first, showing level, message, file and line, count, and first/last seen to identify recurring failures.

Instructions

Errors of a log grouped by signature, newest first: level, message, file and line, count, first and last seen. Use for "what keeps failing" questions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_errors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax groups (1-100).
sourceNoSource id from list_log_sources. Omit for the first readable log.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the grouping-by-signature behavior, the newest-first ordering, and the exact fields returned, so the agent knows this is a deduplicated aggregation rather than a raw error stream. It doesn't cover edge cases (no errors, truncation of samples per group) but is well above a bare restatement.

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, zero filler, with the resource, aggregation, field list and use case front-loaded before any secondary detail.

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?

For a 2-parameter, optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and ordering needed to use the result correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as how samples are capped or what an empty result looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and source are already fully documented (including the 'omit for the first readable log' default behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (errors of a log) plus the aggregation semantic (grouped by signature) and the returned fields (level, message, file/line, count, first/last seen). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_recent_fatals and tail_log purely from this sentence.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'what keeps failing' questions, which frames it as the aggregate/frequency view rather than a raw stream. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or explicitly routing to tail_log / list_recent_fatals for raw or recent items.

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