Fetches logs for a specific job in an EAS workflow run. Call without sectionIndex or phase to get a summary of log sections (phase names and line ranges); then call again with sectionIndex or phase to fetch that section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | ||
| jobKey | Yes | ||
| sectionIndex | No | ||
| workflowRunId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about the two-step workflow (summary vs. section fetch), which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not detail what data is returned or any rate limits, but with annotations covering the core traits, a 4 is justified.
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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides the two-step usage essentially. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 the tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential usage pattern. It doesn't mention the return format, but with no output schema and a clear action, it's reasonably complete. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or the exact meaning of phase vs sectionIndex, but the two-step guidance helps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description explains that sectionIndex or phase are used to fetch a specific section, and that omitting them yields a summary. However, it does not explain each parameter in detail (e.g., jobKey, workflowRunId) beyond what the schema provides. It adds some value but not comprehensive.
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 clearly states the tool fetches logs for a specific job in an EAS workflow run, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like expo_build_logs by specifying it's for EAS workflow runs, and provides a two-step usage pattern to get a summary then fetch a specific section.
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 explicitly instructs when to call without parameters (to get a summary of sections) and when to call with them (to fetch a specific section). This provides clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the two-step pattern is explicit and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.