Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Read app logs

get_app_logs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read recent log lines from the live version of a function app: what the function wrote with console, any uncaught exception, and any invocation the runtime stopped, each with the request that produced it. Newest last, the most recent 2,000 lines per app. An app that serves files has no process and answers that it has no logs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many rows to return. Defaults to 50.
sinceNoThe next_since cursor from a previous answer, such as c:412, or an RFC 3339 timestamp. A bare number is neither and is refused.
app_idYesThe app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"RFC 3339 timestamp to read from."New value: +"The next_since cursor from a previous answer, such as c:412, or an RFC 3339 timestamp. A bare number is neither and is refused."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description goes well beyond them by specifying the exact content of log lines, ordering ('Newest last'), the per-app 2,000-line cap, and the no-process behavior for file-serving apps. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three focused sentences front-load the action and resource, then add only high-value behavioral details. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Together with the rich schema and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the ordering, the retention boundary, and the empty-log edge case. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately supplies enough return-behavior context for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 the baseline is 3: app_id, limit, and since are already well documented in the schema. The description adds useful operational context (newest-last ordering and the 2,000-line retention cap) but does not need to re-explain parameter formats.

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 opens with 'Read recent log lines from the live version of a function app' – a specific verb and resource – then enumerates what kinds of log lines are included (console output, uncaught exceptions, stopped invocations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_app, read_app_version, and read_app_file, which target other data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied through the log-focused language and live-version qualifier, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The file-serving-app note is a behavioral edge case rather than a routing instruction, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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

All reachpad-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.

Resources