Summarise which log streams (topics) are active and their level mix. Cheap orientation - call this before tail_logs so you know what topics exist and where the errors are, instead of guessing topic names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | How many recent events to summarise (default 1000, max 2000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It adds 'cheap orientation' and 'Summarise', which imply low cost and aggregation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, output format, or any side effects. The description is safe but not fully transparent.
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 sentences, with the core function stated first and the practical usage hint in the second. No fluff; every clause carries meaning.
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?
For a one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it in a workflow, and why it is valuable (finding topics and errors). It does not describe the output structure, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'window' parameter, including default and max values. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('log streams (topics)') and states exactly what it reports: active streams and their level mix. It explicitly names tail_logs as a sibling, which differentiates this tool from the log-tailing use case and gives clear purpose.
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?
It gives explicit guidance on when to call this tool: before tail_logs, to know what topics exist and where errors are, instead of guessing topic names. This clearly indicates the intended workflow and distinguishes it from the downstream tail_logs tool, though it does not cover all sibling alternatives.
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.
