Retrieve API v1 join logs from an ER:LC private server to track when players joined. Use it to audit player activity and verify join events.
Get API v1 join logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses nothing: no indication of pagination, result window, auth requirements, sorting, or retention. 'Get ... join logs' is the only behavioral signal, and it is the minimum possible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean, but it is concise to the point of vacuity — it conveys no more than the name already does, so the sentence barely earns its place.
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?
No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description must carry the load; it identifies the log type but omits any description of what a join log record contains, the return shape, or constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for a zero-param retrieval call.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for.
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 is essentially the tool name restated: the name 'erlc_v1_joinlogs' becomes 'Get API v1 join logs.' It does identify the resource as join logs (distinct from sibling killlogs/commandlogs), but contributes no verb nuance, format, or clarification beyond the identifier itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling log tools (killlogs, commandlogs, modcalls) or the aggregated 'erlc_logs'. An agent is left to infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.