Skip to main content
Glama

LexQ

by io.lexq.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Failure Logs

lexq_logs_list
Read-only

List system failure logs from background tasks (platform event webhooks, scheduled deployments). Without dates the window is 7 days back through today, in the organization time zone; pass startDate to look further back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
sizeNoPage size
statusNoLog status
endDateNoEnd date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive: the whole day counts.
keywordNoSearch in refId, refSubId, errorMessage
taskTypeNoTask type
startDateNoStart date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / endDate / description
      Previous value: -"End date (yyyy-MM-dd)"New value: +"End date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive: the whole day counts."
    • changedInput schema / properties / startDate / description
      Previous value: -"Start date (yyyy-MM-dd)"New value: +"Start date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive."
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / category
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Task category",
-  "enum": [
-    "INTEGRATION",
-    "INTERNAL"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / taskType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "COUPON_ISSUE",
-  "COUPON_CANCEL",
-  "POINT_EARN",
-  "POINT_USE",
-  "POINT_REFUND",
-  "NOTIFICATION_SEND",
-  "CRM_SYNC_USER",
-  "CRM_ADD_TAG",
-  "WEBHOOK_EXECUTE",
-  "IMAGE_PROCESSING",
-  "DAILY_SETTLEMENT",
-  "PLATFORM_WEBHOOK",
-  "SCHEDULED_DEPLOYMENT"
-]New value: +[
+  "PLATFORM_WEBHOOK",
+  "SCHEDULED_DEPLOYMENT"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / taskType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "COUPON_ISSUE",
-  "COUPON_CANCEL",
-  "POINT_EARN",
-  "POINT_USE",
-  "POINT_REFUND",
-  "NOTIFICATION_SEND",
-  "CRM_SYNC_USER",
-  "CRM_ADD_TAG",
-  "WEBHOOK_EXECUTE",
-  "IMAGE_PROCESSING",
-  "DAILY_SETTLEMENT",
-  "PLATFORM_WEBHOOK"
-]New value: +[
+  "COUPON_ISSUE",
+  "COUPON_CANCEL",
+  "POINT_EARN",
+  "POINT_USE",
+  "POINT_REFUND",
+  "NOTIFICATION_SEND",
+  "CRM_SYNC_USER",
+  "CRM_ADD_TAG",
+  "WEBHOOK_EXECUTE",
+  "IMAGE_PROCESSING",
+  "DAILY_SETTLEMENT",
+  "PLATFORM_WEBHOOK",
+  "SCHEDULED_DEPLOYMENT"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / taskType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "COUPON_ISSUE",
-  "COUPON_CANCEL",
-  "POINT_EARN",
-  "POINT_USE",
-  "POINT_REFUND",
-  "NOTIFICATION_SEND",
-  "CRM_SYNC_USER",
-  "CRM_ADD_TAG",
-  "WEBHOOK_EXECUTE",
-  "IMAGE_PROCESSING",
-  "DAILY_SETTLEMENT"
-]New value: +[
+  "COUPON_ISSUE",
+  "COUPON_CANCEL",
+  "POINT_EARN",
+  "POINT_USE",
+  "POINT_REFUND",
+  "NOTIFICATION_SEND",
+  "CRM_SYNC_USER",
+  "CRM_ADD_TAG",
+  "WEBHOOK_EXECUTE",
+  "IMAGE_PROCESSING",
+  "DAILY_SETTLEMENT",
+  "PLATFORM_WEBHOOK"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context on top: the implicit 7-day lookback window and the organization-time-zone interpretation of that window. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core identification of the resource is front-loaded ahead of the date-window detail. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with seven fully documented schema parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essentials and adds the non-obvious default-window rule. The only gap is that it says nothing about the shape of a returned log entry, which with no output schema would have been useful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the per-parameter text: it explains that omitting dates yields a 7-day window in the organization time zone and that startDate is the lever for going further back. That is date-parameter behavior the schema does not state, though other parameters (status, taskType, keyword) get no mention.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List system failure logs from background tasks') and narrows the scope with concrete examples ('platform event webhooks, scheduled deployments'), so an agent immediately knows what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from sibling log tools such as lexq_logs_get or lexq_logs_action, which prevents a 5.

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?

It gives genuine usage context for the date parameters: the default 7-day window and the instruction to 'pass startDate to look further back.' However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this list tool over the sibling log tools (lexq_logs_get, lexq_logs_action, lexq_logs_bulk_action), so usage is only partially framed.

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

All LexQ toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources