{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-digma","slug":"digma","name":"Digma","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/digma-ai/digma-mcp-server","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/digma","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_0","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.dynamic.code.risk.analysis.from.runtime.telemetry","name":"dynamic-code-risk-analysis-from-runtime-telemetry","description":"Analyzes live application behavior through OpenTelemetry (OTEL) and APM data collection to identify risky code patterns, performance bottlenecks, and error-prone execution paths without static analysis alone. Correlates runtime traces, metrics, and spans with source code locations to surface code sections experiencing high latency, frequent exceptions, or anomalous behavior patterns that static tools miss.","intents":["identify which code paths are actually causing production issues based on real traffic patterns","find performance bottlenecks and N+1 queries that only manifest under load","surface error-prone code sections that fail frequently in production but pass tests","prioritize code review focus on high-risk, high-impact functions based on runtime behavior"],"best_for":["teams running instrumented applications with OTEL collectors already deployed","engineering teams doing post-incident code reviews and root cause analysis","developers optimizing performance-critical services with real production data"],"limitations":["requires active OTEL instrumentation in the target application — cannot analyze uninstrumented code","analysis quality depends on instrumentation coverage and trace sampling rate","latency analysis requires sufficient traffic volume to establish meaningful baselines","cannot identify issues in code paths that are never executed in production"],"requires":["OpenTelemetry SDK integrated into target application","APM backend (Datadog, New Relic, Jaeger, etc.) collecting traces and metrics","network connectivity from MCP server to APM backend API","API credentials or authentication tokens for APM platform"],"input_types":["source code file paths or repository context","function/method names to analyze","time range filters for trace data"],"output_types":["structured risk scores per code section","trace correlation data linking code to runtime behavior","performance metrics (latency percentiles, error rates)","actionable recommendations for code fixes"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","code-review-assistance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_1","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.code.review.context.enrichment.with.runtime.insights","name":"code-review-context-enrichment-with-runtime-insights","description":"Augments code review workflows by injecting runtime telemetry context directly into the review process, showing reviewers which code changes affect high-latency paths, frequently-failing functions, or critical execution flows. Integrates with MCP to provide real-time risk assessment and behavioral impact analysis as reviewers examine diffs.","intents":["understand the runtime impact of a code change before merging","identify if a refactor affects performance-critical or error-prone code paths","get data-driven context on whether a change reduces or increases production risk","correlate code changes to recent production incidents or performance regressions"],"best_for":["code review teams with mature observability and incident tracking","engineering leads doing risk-based code review prioritization","teams using MCP-compatible IDEs or code review tools (Claude, Cursor, etc.)"],"limitations":["requires historical APM data for the code being reviewed — new code paths have no baseline","cannot predict runtime behavior for untested code branches","integration depends on MCP server availability and APM backend responsiveness","risk scoring is relative to historical patterns and may not catch novel failure modes"],"requires":["MCP-compatible code editor or review tool","APM backend with at least 7-14 days of historical trace data","source code repository with git history accessible to MCP server","OTEL instrumentation in the application being reviewed"],"input_types":["git diff or pull request context","file paths and line numbers","function signatures and method names"],"output_types":["risk assessment annotations on code diffs","runtime impact summaries","related trace examples and error logs","recommendations for additional testing or monitoring"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_2","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.issue.identification.from.trace.correlation","name":"issue-identification-from-trace-correlation","description":"Automatically identifies code-level issues by analyzing patterns in OTEL traces and correlating them with source code locations, detecting N+1 queries, memory leaks, exception cascades, and synchronous blocking operations that manifest as performance or reliability problems. Uses trace span relationships and timing data to pinpoint root causes in specific functions or code blocks.","intents":["find the exact code causing a performance regression without manual debugging","detect database query patterns that scale poorly with load","identify exception handling code that masks or propagates errors incorrectly","locate synchronous blocking calls in async code paths"],"best_for":["backend teams investigating production performance issues","database performance optimization teams","teams with comprehensive OTEL instrumentation and trace sampling"],"limitations":["pattern detection accuracy depends on instrumentation granularity — missing spans reduce visibility","cannot detect issues in uninstrumented third-party libraries","requires sufficient trace volume to establish statistical significance","false positives possible if instrumentation introduces artificial latency"],"requires":["OTEL instrumentation with database, HTTP, and custom span support","APM backend storing traces with full span context and timing data","source code repository with symbol information for stack trace mapping","minimum 1000+ traces per code path for reliable pattern detection"],"input_types":["time range for trace analysis","service or application name","optional: specific function or endpoint to focus on"],"output_types":["list of identified issues with severity scores","code locations (file, line number, function) for each issue","example traces demonstrating the issue","suggested fixes or optimization approaches"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_3","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.code.fix.recommendation.generation","name":"code-fix-recommendation-generation","description":"Generates targeted code fix recommendations by analyzing identified issues in context of the codebase, suggesting specific refactorings, query optimizations, or architectural changes to resolve performance and reliability problems. Uses the correlation between problematic code and runtime behavior to propose fixes with expected impact estimates.","intents":["get concrete code changes to fix identified performance bottlenecks","understand the expected performance improvement from a proposed fix","receive refactoring suggestions tailored to the specific codebase patterns","prioritize fixes based on impact and effort estimates"],"best_for":["developers implementing performance optimizations","teams doing incident remediation with time pressure","engineering teams with limited performance optimization expertise"],"limitations":["recommendations are heuristic-based and may not account for business logic constraints","impact estimates are based on historical data and may not reflect actual improvements","cannot suggest fixes for issues requiring architectural changes","generated code may require manual review and testing before deployment"],"requires":["identified issues from issue-identification capability","source code repository with full context available","historical performance baseline for impact estimation","language-specific code generation models or templates"],"input_types":["issue description and code location","codebase context and related functions","performance baseline and target metrics"],"output_types":["suggested code changes (diffs or snippets)","explanation of why the fix addresses the issue","estimated performance improvement percentage","testing recommendations"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_4","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.based.tool.registry.for.code.observability.queries","name":"mcp-based-tool-registry-for-code-observability-queries","description":"Implements a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that exposes code observability capabilities as callable tools with a schema-based function registry, enabling LLM-based code assistants and agents to query runtime behavior, analyze traces, and generate insights without direct APM platform access. Handles authentication, rate limiting, and response formatting for seamless integration with MCP clients.","intents":["enable Claude or other MCP-compatible assistants to analyze code with runtime context","allow agents to autonomously investigate performance issues using observability data","integrate code observability into existing MCP-based development workflows","provide structured access to APM data for programmatic analysis"],"best_for":["teams using Claude or other MCP-compatible LLM assistants","developers building custom agents that need observability context","organizations standardizing on MCP for tool integration"],"limitations":["MCP server availability is a single point of failure for observability queries","rate limiting on APM backend may throttle concurrent queries from multiple clients","schema-based tool definitions require maintenance as APM platforms evolve","response latency depends on APM backend performance and network conditions"],"requires":["MCP-compatible client (Claude, Cursor, or custom MCP implementation)","MCP server running and accessible to the client","APM backend API credentials configured in MCP server","network connectivity between MCP server and APM backend"],"input_types":["tool invocation with structured parameters","query filters (time range, service, function name)","optional: custom analysis parameters"],"output_types":["structured JSON responses with trace data and analysis results","formatted text summaries for LLM consumption","error messages with diagnostic information"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_5","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.codebase.aware.trace.to.source.mapping","name":"codebase-aware-trace-to-source-mapping","description":"Maps OTEL trace spans to source code locations by correlating span metadata (function names, file paths, line numbers) with the actual codebase, enabling precise identification of which code is executing during traced operations. Handles language-specific symbol resolution, stack trace parsing, and source map integration for accurate code-to-trace correlation.","intents":["find the exact line of code responsible for a slow trace span","correlate error stack traces to source code for root cause analysis","understand the call chain from high-level traces down to specific code locations","identify code changes that correlate with trace behavior changes"],"best_for":["teams with multi-language codebases and comprehensive instrumentation","developers debugging production issues using trace data","teams using source maps or symbol servers for code mapping"],"limitations":["requires source code repository to be accessible to MCP server","symbol resolution fails for minified or obfuscated code without source maps","inaccurate if instrumentation uses generic span names without code context","performance degrades with very large codebases (100k+ files)"],"requires":["OTEL instrumentation with code location metadata in spans","source code repository with git history and symbol information","language-specific parsers for stack trace and span metadata","optional: source maps for compiled/transpiled languages"],"input_types":["OTEL trace spans with function/file metadata","stack traces from error events","source code repository context"],"output_types":["mapped code locations (file path, line number, function name)","source code snippets for context","call chain visualization","git blame information for code changes"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.performance.regression.detection.from.trace.baselines","name":"performance-regression-detection-from-trace-baselines","description":"Establishes performance baselines from historical trace data and automatically detects regressions by comparing current trace metrics against baselines, identifying code changes or environmental factors that degrade performance. Uses statistical analysis of latency distributions, error rates, and resource utilization to flag significant deviations.","intents":["detect performance regressions before they impact users","identify which code changes caused a performance degradation","establish performance SLOs and alert when code violates them","compare performance across different code versions or branches"],"best_for":["teams with continuous deployment and need for regression detection","performance-sensitive services where latency matters","teams using feature flags or canary deployments"],"limitations":["requires at least 2-4 weeks of baseline data for reliable detection","cannot detect regressions in new code paths with no baseline","environmental factors (load, infrastructure changes) can cause false positives","statistical significance requires sufficient trace volume per code path"],"requires":["historical trace data spanning multiple weeks","consistent instrumentation across code versions","APM backend with time-series metrics and percentile calculations","code version/commit information in trace metadata"],"input_types":["time range for baseline establishment","code version or commit hash to analyze","optional: performance thresholds or SLO targets"],"output_types":["regression detection alerts with severity","latency distribution comparisons (p50, p95, p99)","error rate changes","correlated code changes and commits"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-digma__cap_7","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.error.cascade.and.exception.pattern.analysis","name":"error-cascade-and-exception-pattern-analysis","description":"Analyzes exception patterns in traces to identify cascading failures, exception masking, and error propagation issues by examining exception types, frequencies, and relationships across the call chain. Detects when errors in one code path trigger failures in dependent code or when exceptions are caught and re-thrown incorrectly.","intents":["find exception handling code that masks or suppresses important errors","identify cascading failures where one error triggers multiple downstream failures","detect exception types that appear frequently but are not properly handled","understand the root cause of error storms or cascading outages"],"best_for":["teams investigating production outages and error cascades","reliability engineers improving error handling and resilience","teams with comprehensive exception instrumentation in OTEL"],"limitations":["requires detailed exception information in traces (type, message, stack trace)","cannot detect silent failures where exceptions are caught without logging","pattern detection depends on sufficient error volume for statistical significance","false positives possible if exception handling is intentionally broad"],"requires":["OTEL instrumentation with exception events and error attributes","APM backend storing exception details and relationships","source code repository for exception class mapping","minimum 100+ exceptions per pattern for reliable detection"],"input_types":["time range for exception analysis","optional: specific exception types or code paths to focus on"],"output_types":["exception pattern analysis with frequency and relationships","cascade chain visualization","code locations where exceptions are caught/handled","recommendations for exception handling improvements"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":29,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["OpenTelemetry SDK integrated into target application","APM backend (Datadog, New Relic, Jaeger, etc.) collecting traces and metrics","network connectivity from MCP server to APM backend API","API credentials or authentication tokens for APM platform","MCP-compatible code editor or review tool","APM backend with at least 7-14 days of historical trace data","source code repository with git history accessible to MCP server","OTEL instrumentation in the application being reviewed","OTEL instrumentation with database, HTTP, and custom span support","APM backend storing traces with full span context and timing data"],"failure_modes":["requires active OTEL instrumentation in the target application — cannot analyze uninstrumented code","analysis quality depends on instrumentation coverage and trace sampling rate","latency analysis requires sufficient traffic volume to establish meaningful baselines","cannot identify issues in code paths that are never executed in production","requires historical APM data for the code being reviewed — new code paths have no baseline","cannot predict runtime behavior for untested code branches","integration depends on MCP server availability and APM backend responsiveness","risk scoring is relative to historical patterns and may not catch novel failure modes","pattern detection accuracy depends on instrumentation granularity — missing spans reduce visibility","cannot detect issues in uninstrumented third-party libraries","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.41,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.52,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.038Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:15.503Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=digma","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=digma"}},"signature":"pn6blmB3EVnibORUTXUmD0tMb/ClzgsJqq+v4+yMdxkXP2CAFKSOUCJlBu/poI07sj1X8n18ZIqgwBhph69hCQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T06:17:14.636Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/digma","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/digma","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=digma","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}