docs: mcp observability with instana

[elinacse]

Important

Adds documentation for MCP Observability support in Instana with new span attributes and an example image.

• Documentation:
  • Adds section on MCP Observability support in instana.mdx.
  • Lists new span attributes for MCP traces: mcp.method.name, mcp.request.argument, mcp.request.id, mcp.response.value, mcp.session.init_options.
  • Includes an image example of MCP traces in Instana UI.

^{This description was created by for d21fcb4. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to d21fcb4 in 1 minute and 14 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 21 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. openllmetry/integrations/instana.mdx:65

• Draft comment:
  Consider defining what 'MCP' stands for to clarify its meaning for new users.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is purely informative and suggests adding a definition for 'MCP' to clarify its meaning. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code. It also doesn't align with the examples of good comments provided.

2. openllmetry/integrations/instana.mdx:66

• Draft comment:
  Consider formatting the MCP span attributes as a bullet list for better readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. openllmetry/integrations/instana.mdx:75

• Draft comment:
  Please add a trailing newline at the end of the file for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While having a trailing newline is a common convention, this is a very minor formatting issue. The file is an MDX documentation file, not a code file where missing trailing newlines could cause actual issues. This seems like an overly pedantic comment that doesn't meaningfully improve the code quality. A missing trailing newline could cause issues with some text processing tools and git diffs. It's a widely accepted convention. While true, this is a documentation file and the impact is minimal. The comment violates our rule about not making comments that are obvious or unimportant. Delete this comment as it's too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment, especially for a documentation file.

4. openllmetry/integrations/instana.mdx:65

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: There is an extra space before the colon in the sentence "The following span attributes are available for MCP traces :". Consider removing the space so it reads "MCP traces:".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically correct and about changed code, it's an extremely minor formatting issue in documentation. The current format is readable and doesn't impact understanding. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This seems to fall into that category. The space before the colon could be considered inconsistent with standard English punctuation rules, and maintaining consistent documentation style is important. While consistency is good, this is such a minor issue that it doesn't warrant a PR comment. It doesn't affect functionality or readability significantly. This comment should be deleted as it addresses an extremely minor formatting issue that doesn't significantly impact documentation quality.

Workflow ID: wflow_QEcJ62MkKdiQHCJy

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}