Get recent logs from an Osir app's microVM ('why is my app broken?'). Required: appId (string). Optional: tail (number of recent lines, default 100). Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tail | No | ||
| appId | Yes | ||
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly discloses that authentication is required and that the operation only reads recent logs. It does not describe output ordering or potential truncation, but for a log-retrieval call the essential traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences put the intent, user ai, required parameter, optional parameter, and auth prerequisiste up front with no waste. Every clause adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, appId, and tail default. It could be more explicit about where appId comes from or how logs are returned, but the essentials are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% because appId and tail lack schema descriptions; the tool description compensates by identifying appId as required and specifying tail as 'number of recent lines, default 100.' The sessionKey parameter is already described in the schema, so no gap remains there.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a clear operation and resource: 'Get recent logs from an Osir app's microVM.' The parenthetical 'why is my app broken?' makes the diagnostic purpose immediate and distinguishes it from the other osirApp* management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'why is my app broken?' phrasing gives an agent a clear trigger condition for calling this tool. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the log-focused use case is obvious from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.