Recent output and errors from the project's backend.
Read this FIRST whenever the app misbehaves -- a 500 on the site has a traceback here. Debugging from the logs is expected of you; do not ask the user to describe the error instead. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | ||
| project_guid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear that the logs contain recent output and errors, that 500s surface as tracebacks, and that the operation is free. It does not mention authentication, how far back 'recent' goes, or behavior when logs are unavailable.
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 compact and front-loaded: a short statement of what it returns, followed by clear priority guidance and a concise 'Free' note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.
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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and basic behavioral expectations. The main missing piece is parameter-level explanation, especially lines, which prevents it from being fully complete.
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 needed to explain project_guid and lines. 'Project's backend' weakly implies project_guid, but lines is left entirely to the schema's bare type/default with no explanation that it controls the number of log entries returned.
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 action and resource: reading recent output and errors from the project's backend. It also gives a concrete example of what the tool exposes ('a 500 ... has a traceback here'), which clearly identifies it as the backend log reader among the sibling 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 gives explicit guidance: read this first whenever the app misbehaves, and do not ask the user to describe the error instead. It does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus siblings like read_backend_file or query_database, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.
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 pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.
The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.
At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.
The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.