docs: fix README

[nirga]

Important

Removes detailed documentation from README.md, leaving only a brief introduction to the OpenTelemetry-MCP-Server.

• Documentation:
  • Removes detailed sections from README.md including features, installation, configuration, usage, tools reference, and more.
  • The README now only contains a brief introduction to the OpenTelemetry-MCP-Server.

^{This description was created by for e4c1c05. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated README formatting for improved presentation.
  • Removed Project Structure section from documentation.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

The pull request removes the Project Structure section from the README and adds spacing before the Features section, simplifying the repository documentation by removing structural overview details.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Documentation cleanup README.md	Removed the entire Project Structure section including directory tree and file descriptions; added a blank line before the Features section

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

• No logic changes; documentation-only modification
• Straightforward content removal and spacing adjustment

Poem

🐰 A structure once mapped is now gently dismissed,
Features stand cleaner, no directories to list,
With spacing so sweet and clutter removed,
The README now shines, refined and improved!

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch nirga-patch-1

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e12167b and 690226c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to e4c1c05 in 1 minute and 28 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 618 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 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. README.md:3

• Draft comment:
  The updated README is overly stripped down, removing essential sections (features, installation, configuration, and usage instructions). Consider retaining or summarizing these details for new users.
• 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% This comment is about documentation changes, not code logic. The rules state "Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention, to explain, to double-check things, to ensure the behavior is intended" - this comment is essentially doing that by saying "Consider retaining or summarizing these details." The PR author clearly made a deliberate choice to strip the README down to just the basic description. This could be intentional (maybe moving docs elsewhere, or simplifying for a specific reason). The comment doesn't point to a clear bug or issue - it's a subjective opinion about documentation completeness. The rules also say "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" - this is about documentation, not code functionality. However, completely removing all installation and usage instructions from a README could genuinely make the project unusable for new users. This might be a legitimate concern about project usability rather than just a stylistic preference. The comment could be seen as pointing out a potential problem rather than just asking for confirmation. While it's true that removing documentation could impact usability, the rules are clear that we shouldn't ask the PR author to confirm intentions or make speculative suggestions. The comment uses "Consider retaining" which is asking the author to reconsider their decision, not pointing to a definitive issue. If the author stripped the README, they likely had a reason (moving to a wiki, different documentation strategy, etc.). Without evidence that this is objectively wrong, this falls into the category of asking the author to explain/confirm their intention. This comment should be deleted. It's asking the PR author to reconsider a deliberate documentation decision without clear evidence that it's wrong. The comment is speculative about what "new users" need and doesn't point to a concrete code issue that needs fixing.

Workflow ID: wflow_spr9WygXz8Q4sM20

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