Production-ready Model Context Protocol server for intelligent error collection, analysis, and AI-powered summarization
The Error Collector MCP defines 5 tools with generally complete parameter schemas and descriptions. However, there are significant gaps in output schema documentation, error handling guidance, and some descriptions lack specificity about error conditions and recovery paths. Tool naming follows verb_object convention appropriately ('query_errors', 'get_error_summary', etc.). Most tools have descriptions in the 50-150 character range, which is acceptable but could be more specific about failure modes and actionable next steps. Parameter schemas are well-formed with enums, type constraints, and defaults, meeting baseline standards. The main weakness is that output schemas are not documented in the provided code, we cannot verify what fields the tools return or whether they include IDs for chaining. The simulate_error tool is a testing utility that lacks detailed error semantics.
Get comprehensive error statistics, trends, and analytics for monitoring and analysis
Get AI-generated summaries and analysis of errors with root cause identification and solutions
Get comprehensive server status and health information
Query and filter collected errors with various criteria
Simulate errors for testing and demonstration purposes
Output schemas are not documented in source code. Tools return results but the response format, field names, and types are not visible. This prevents assessment of whether tools return IDs for chaining (e.g., does query_errors return error_ids that get_error_summary can accept?) and prevents LLMs from planning downstream calls correctly.
Error handling guidance is missing. Descriptions do not explain failure modes or recovery paths. For example, get_error_summary mentions 'AI-generated summaries' but does not state what happens if the LLM analysis fails (timeout, malformed response, rate limit). Pattern: recovery-guide requires tools to tell LLMs 'what to do next' on error.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 55 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | D | 50 | - | v1 |
Parameter relationships and dependencies are underspecified. get_error_summary has an 'action' enum (get_existing, generate_new, get_for_error, list_recent) but descriptions do not clearly state which parameters are required/optional for each action. For example, is 'error_ids' required for 'generate_new'? Optional for 'get_existing'? This forces LLMs to guess.
simulate_error lacks clarity on side effects and cleanup. Creating test data in production error stores is dangerous if agents cannot distinguish or remove simulated errors. Description should state: Are simulated errors marked/tagged? Can they be filtered? Is there a delete_simulated_errors tool?
Vague parameter descriptions. 'include_context' in query_errors, 'include_details' in get_server_status, and 'include_solutions' in get_error_summary lack specificity. 'Detailed error context' could mean stack trace, timestamp, frequency, related errors, etc. LLMs cannot infer which fields are affected.