agent-trace-intelligence
Analyzes AI agent traces to diagnose failures, score performance, and provide actionable fixes using tools like judge_trace and trace_breakdown.
README
Agent Trace Intelligence MCP
Diagnose why your agent did what it did, and how to fix it.
The Problem
When an AI agent fails or behaves unexpectedly, existing tools tell you what happened: token counts, step logs, latency metrics. But they don't tell you why the agent made a wrong turn or how to fix it. Debugging agents means staring at raw traces and guessing.
The Solution
Agent traces show you what happened. This tool tells you why it went wrong and what to change. Pass in any agent trace JSON and get root causes, scores, and a concrete fix back. Zero instrumentation required.
Use it alongside LangSmith, Arize Phoenix, and W&B Weave. When your observability stack surfaces a failure, this is where you go to diagnose it.
Works in Cursor, Claude Desktop, VS Code (Copilot MCP), and any stdio MCP client.
How It Fits
This tool explains why a single agent trace behaved the way it did.
It complements existing observability tools:
- Azure Application Insights, AWS CloudWatch, GCP Cloud Trace: show what happened across runs
- LangSmith, Arize Phoenix, W&B Weave: track agent behaviour over time
This tool answers a narrower question: why did this specific trace fail, and what exactly needs to change?
Install
# With uv (recommended)
uv add agent-trace-intelligence
# Or pip
pip install agent-trace-intelligence
Quick Start: Claude Desktop
Add to claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"agent-trace-intelligence": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["run", "agent-trace-intelligence"],
"env": {
"AZURE_AI_API_KEY": "your-azure-ai-foundry-key",
"AZURE_AI_API_BASE": "https://your-resource.cognitiveservices.azure.com/",
"JUDGE_MODEL": "azure_ai/claude-opus-4-6"
}
}
}
}
No Azure? Use OpenAI instead:
{
"env": {
"JUDGE_MODEL": "gpt-4o-mini",
"OPENAI_API_KEY": "sk-..."
}
}
Tools Reference
| Tool | Description | API Key? | Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
judge_trace |
Root cause analysis, 4-dimension scoring, grade, verdict, plain-English explanation | Required | ~3-5s |
trace_breakdown |
Step-by-step scoring with flags (REDUNDANT_TOOL_CALL, REASONING_GAP, etc.) | Required | ~3-5s |
efficiency_score |
Deterministic token/latency/redundancy analysis | Not required | Instant |
judge_trace
Input:
{
"trace": "<JSON string of AgentTrace>",
"goal": "optional: override the goal stated in the trace"
}
Output:
{
"overall_score": 0.82,
"grade": "B",
"verdict": "needs optimisation",
"dimension_scores": {
"goal_completion": 0.9,
"reasoning_clarity": 0.8,
"tool_usage": 0.75,
"output_quality": 0.83
},
"summary": "Agent completed the goal but made one redundant search call",
"root_causes": [
"Unnecessary second search call at step 4 caused token inflation. Result was already available from step 2",
"Agent did not validate tool output before proceeding to the next step"
],
"strengths": ["Clear reasoning steps", "Correct initial tool selection"],
"weaknesses": ["Redundant tool call on step 4", "Incomplete final output"],
"recommendation": "Remove duplicate search call at step 4. Saves ~400 tokens",
"explain_like_im_5": "The agent searched the internet twice for the same thing when it only needed to do it once, which wasted time and money.",
"confidence": "high"
}
Verdict values: "production-ready" | "needs optimisation" | "broken"
trace_breakdown
Per-step scoring with flags:
REDUNDANT_TOOL_CALL: same tool called with same/similar inputHALLUCINATED_TOOL: tool referenced that doesn't exist in the traceREASONING_GAP: response doesn't follow from previous tool outputGOAL_DRIFT: agent deviates from the original goalPREMATURE_STOP: agent stopped before completing the goal
efficiency_score
No API key required. Deterministic analysis of:
- Token usage (total, per-step, rating: good/moderate/high)
- Tool redundancy (redundant calls, failed calls, redundancy rate)
- Latency (total ms, slowest step/tool, rating: fast/acceptable/slow)
overall_efficiency_score(0.0-1.0 weighted composite)
AgentTrace Schema
All tools accept a trace JSON conforming to this schema:
{
"trace_id": "optional",
"agent_name": "optional",
"goal": "What was the agent trying to do?",
"model": "gpt-4o",
"total_tokens": 820,
"total_latency_ms": 3200,
"final_output": "The agent's final response",
"steps": [
{
"step_number": 1,
"role": "user",
"content": "User message"
},
{
"step_number": 2,
"role": "assistant",
"content": "I'll search for that.",
"token_count": 120
},
{
"step_number": 3,
"role": "tool",
"tool_call": {
"tool_name": "web_search",
"input": {"query": "..."},
"output": "Search results...",
"latency_ms": 1200,
"error": null
}
}
]
}
All fields except steps are optional. Works with whatever you can provide.
Format Adapters
Optional helpers to convert native framework traces to AgentTrace format:
from agent_trace_intelligence.formats import (
adapt_langchain, # LangChain callback handler output
adapt_openai_agents, # OpenAI Agents SDK RunStep objects
adapt_autogen, # AutoGen message history
adapt_maf, # MAF GA 1.0 (OpenTelemetry GenAI spans)
)
# Convert and pass directly to any tool
trace = adapt_langchain(raw_langchain_output)
These are convenience helpers. The tools accept any valid AgentTrace JSON regardless of framework.
| Adapter | Framework | Status |
|---|---|---|
adapt_langchain |
LangChain callback handler / LangSmith export | v1 |
adapt_openai_agents |
OpenAI Agents SDK (RunStep objects) | v1 |
adapt_autogen |
AutoGen legacy (pyautogen) message history |
v1 |
adapt_maf |
Microsoft Agent Framework GA 1.0 (OTel spans) | v1 |
Model Support & Cost Guidance
Configure via JUDGE_MODEL env var. Zero code change required.
| Use Case | Recommended Model | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Best quality (default) | azure_ai/claude-opus-4-6 |
~$0.015/trace |
| Fast Azure alternative | azure_ai/gpt-4.1 |
~$0.008/trace |
| Open source / no Azure | gpt-4o-mini |
~$0.002/trace |
| CI/CD batch evaluation | gpt-4o-mini |
< $0.01/trace |
| Anthropic direct | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
~$0.001/trace |
For CI/CD use: Set JUDGE_MODEL=gpt-4o-mini to keep costs under $0.01 per trace. For interactive debugging, azure_ai/claude-opus-4-6 gives the best root cause reasoning.
efficiency_score is always free. No model call, no API key.
Future Direction (v2)
- Pattern detection across multiple traces to surface recurring failure modes
- Batch trace analysis for CI/CD quality gates
- Enterprise governance signals to flag traces that violate defined agent policies
- SSE transport for enterprise internal MCP deployment
- Connectors to pull traces directly from observability platforms (Azure App Insights, AWS CloudWatch, GCP Cloud Trace, LangSmith). Contributions welcome.
License
MIT. See LICENSE
推荐服务器
Baidu Map
百度地图核心API现已全面兼容MCP协议,是国内首家兼容MCP协议的地图服务商。
Playwright MCP Server
一个模型上下文协议服务器,它使大型语言模型能够通过结构化的可访问性快照与网页进行交互,而无需视觉模型或屏幕截图。
Magic Component Platform (MCP)
一个由人工智能驱动的工具,可以从自然语言描述生成现代化的用户界面组件,并与流行的集成开发环境(IDE)集成,从而简化用户界面开发流程。
Audiense Insights MCP Server
通过模型上下文协议启用与 Audiense Insights 账户的交互,从而促进营销洞察和受众数据的提取和分析,包括人口统计信息、行为和影响者互动。
VeyraX
一个单一的 MCP 工具,连接你所有喜爱的工具:Gmail、日历以及其他 40 多个工具。
graphlit-mcp-server
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现了 MCP 客户端与 Graphlit 服务之间的集成。 除了网络爬取之外,还可以将任何内容(从 Slack 到 Gmail 再到播客订阅源)导入到 Graphlit 项目中,然后从 MCP 客户端检索相关内容。
Kagi MCP Server
一个 MCP 服务器,集成了 Kagi 搜索功能和 Claude AI,使 Claude 能够在回答需要最新信息的问题时执行实时网络搜索。
e2b-mcp-server
使用 MCP 通过 e2b 运行代码。
Neon MCP Server
用于与 Neon 管理 API 和数据库交互的 MCP 服务器
Exa MCP Server
模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器允许像 Claude 这样的 AI 助手使用 Exa AI 搜索 API 进行网络搜索。这种设置允许 AI 模型以安全和受控的方式获取实时的网络信息。