Read recent Android system logs from a connected device or local root shell, filtering with adb syntax like *:E to show only errors.
Tail recent logcat lines. filter_spec uses adb syntax such as '*:E' for errors only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | ||
| device | No | Device serial from list_devices (omit when exactly one device is connected). | |
| filter_spec | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether this is a read-only snapshot, a live follow stream, how long it blocks, or whether it needs a connected device or adb permissions. 'Tail' hints at recency but leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the filter syntax hint. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is purely parameter help rather than an expansion of purpose.
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 output schema and no annotations mean the description should carry more: the return format of a 'line', whether results are bounded by the 'lines' param, and the blocking/streaming behavior are all unstated. The device param's own schema note helps, but the definition is only minimally complete for a device-log tool.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add real meaning for filter_spec by giving adb syntax ('*:E' for errors only), but 'lines' has no description anywhere and gets no help from the text. Partial compensation merits the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Tail recent logcat lines'), which clearly identifies the tool as the Android log reader among siblings like shell and screen_dump. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the resource name is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer that this is for inspecting device logs. The only usage hint is the adb-style filter_spec example, which is a syntax detail rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.