Easyparser — Amazon Product & Seller Data

get_error_logs

Read-only

List the user's API request error logs — the same data shown on the Errors page of the Easyparser web app. Covers both real-time API errors and bulk job errors: each row has the platform, operation, domain, error code, channel (BULK/REALTIME), the request parameters that caused it, and a timestamp.

Use this tool when the user asks about failures: "why are my requests failing?", "show me recent errors", "any webhook errors today?", "what went wrong with my DETAIL calls?". Filter by error_channel (BULK or REALTIME), error_code, operation, or domain to narrow down. Each row includes a request_id and the query_params that triggered the error, so you can trace exactly which input failed.

This tool is free of per-call credits (monitoring endpoints do not consume credits).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number. Default 1.
`limit`	No	Items per page (max 1000). Default 100.
`domain`	No	Filter by marketplace domain.
`date_to`	No	ISO date upper bound.
`order_by`	No	Sort field. Default 'create_date'.	create_date
`platform`	No	Filter by platform (e.g. 'AMZ').
`date_from`	No	ISO date lower bound, e.g. 2026-08-01.
`operation`	No	Filter by operation type, e.g. DETAIL or SEARCH.
`error_code`	No	Filter by a specific error code, e.g. 'WEBHOOK_ERROR_404' or 'SOMETHING_WENT_WRONG'.
`order_type`	No	Sort direction. 'desc' (newest first) is default.	desc
`error_channel`	No	Filter by channel: BULK (bulk job errors) or REALTIME (real-time API errors). Omit for both.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "JSON response from the Easyparser Data Service or Account API. Non-object payloads are wrapped as { result }.",
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: rows carry request_id and query_params for tracing the failing input, and monitoring endpoints consume no per-call credits — a non-obvious operational trait. Pagination/retention behavior is left unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the what-and-scope before the when-to-use and the cost note. Each paragraph earns its place, though the third (credits) is a single-purpose sentence that could be folded into the opening to tighten the whole.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it doesn't try. Combined with full annotation coverage and 11 fully documented optional parameters, an agent has everything needed: what it returns, which filters matter, why to reach for it, and the credit implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including the enum semantics for error_channel and operation and the 'Omit for both' behavior) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces error_channel, error_code, operation, and domain as the useful filters but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('List the user's API request error logs') and pins down scope: both real-time API errors and bulk job errors, with the row fields enumerated. It also maps the tool to a concrete surface ('the Errors page of the Easyparser web app'), so an agent can distinguish it from monitoring siblings at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit triggering conditions with realistic user phrasings ('why are my requests failing?', 'any webhook errors today?') and names the filters to apply. What's missing is an explicit boundary against the closest sibling, get_bulk_webhook_logs, which an agent could plausibly confuse with the BULK channel of this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Easyparser — Amazon Product & Seller Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.