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. It describes the tool as a list operation with pagination support ('cursor' and 'next_cursor'), which implies read-only behavior, but does not address permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is a minimal but adequate disclosure for a listing tool.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 (4 parameters, pagination) and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, parameters, and return structure. With an output schema present, it need not detail return values further. Minor gaps include lack of error cases or sibling differentiation, but it covers core functionality adequately.

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 must compensate. It effectively explains all four parameters: 'date' format, 'environment' options, 'limit' default, and 'cursor' purpose for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail constraints like 'environment' enum values more explicitly.

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: 'List log files for a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('log files') with a scope constraint ('for a specific date'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_log_dates' 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. It mentions the tool's function but does not specify scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings such as 'list_log_dates' or 'search_logs', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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