Logpush MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns 'the most recent log entries' and specifies parameters, it lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section detailing parameters and a 'Returns' section. Each sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, though the formatting could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond the high-level 'Dict with the most recent log entries,' which is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining all three parameters: 'environment' (with allowed values 'production or staging'), 'script_name' (as an optional filter), and 'limit' (with a default of 50). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases or format details for the 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the most recent log entries.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent log entries'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_errors' or 'search_logs,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_errors,' 'search_logs,' and 'list_log_dates,' there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others in the logging context.

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