Fetch recent runtime logs from a container via CloudWatch, up to 1000 lines. Helps diagnose runtime issues by returning the latest container output.
Recent RUNTIME logs of a container (CloudWatch, up to 1000 lines). For BUILD logs of a deployment use get_deployments with a deployment_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | Line count, default 100 | |
| container | Yes | Container name or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (CloudWatch), scope (runtime logs), and a line cap (up to 1000 lines), but it does not describe ordering, error behavior, or what happens when the container does not exist. These gaps keep it slightly below strong behavioral transparency.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is delivered in a tightly targeted second sentence.
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 log retrieval tool with no output schemahare, the description covers purpose, source, limit, and sibling routing. It lacks only minor behavioral details like log ordering or error handling, which are not essential for correct invocation.
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 already fully documents both parameters (container name/id and line count with default 100). The description adds 'CloudWatch' and 'up to 1000 lines', but this mostly repeats the schema's maximum constraint. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: 'RUNTIME logs of a container'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_deployments, making the tool's scope immediately 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?
It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For BUILD logs of a deployment use get_deployments with a deployment_id.' This provides both a condition and a concrete alternative, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.