Get recent SDK call logs from the interface iframe (errors, pending calls, etc.). Useful for debugging interface node issues — shows what SDK methods were called, their results or errors, timing, and which node triggered them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | errors | |
| workflow_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds detail on the content of the logs (results, errors, timing, node) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so it neither adds nor contradicts.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then providing useful context. It is concise and free of unnecessary detail.
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?
The description gives some context about the output (what the logs show) but omits any explanation of the input parameters. It is partially complete but lacks the detail needed for full understanding, especially given the output schema is present.
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?
The schema has three parameters (limit, filter, workflow_id) but the description provides zero explanation for any of them. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.
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 action ('Get recent SDK call logs') and the specific resource ('from the interface iframe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_console_logs. It also provides context for its use ('debugging interface node issues').
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 gives a clear use case ('Useful for debugging interface node issues') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_console_logs. It implies when to use but does not name the 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.
