Return the most recent log lines for one of this tenant's tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' and 'log lines' clearly imply a read-only retrieval operation, and 'this tenant's tools' establishes scoping. However, it does not disclose authentication expectations, possible failure modes, or whether results are ordered or truncated beyond the generic 'most recent.'
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes: 'return,' 'most recent,' 'log lines,' 'this tenant's tools,' and 'one of' all add meaningful scoping.
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 simple read-only log tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return format, default limit behavior, or what happens when no logs exist, and it lacks guidance about the Authorization/tenant_key interplay that is only present in the schema.
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 low (33%), so the description partially compensates by indicating the resource is a tool and that logs are tenant-scoped. It does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter or that 'name' identifies the specific tool, though 'one of this tenant's tools' and 'most recent log lines' provide reasonable inference.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('most recent log lines for one of this tenant's tools'), clearly identifying what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host.tool_list, host.tool_run, and host.tool_test by focusing on log retrieval rather than listing, executing, or testing 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention related tools such as host.tool_run or host.tool_test whose results might be inspected through logs. There is no implied usage context beyond the obvious 'when you need logs,' and no exclusions or alternative routing.
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.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.