Count HTTP status codes from recent Apache common or combined access logs to summarize traffic patterns and diagnose errors without exposing raw request entries.
[READ] Count HTTP statuses in recent common/combined access logs, without raw requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely repeats that. The description does add real context beyond annotations: output is status counts with no raw request lines, and it only covers common/combined log formats, which tells the agent what it will and won't get back.
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 wasted words; the scope qualifier and the 'without raw requests' clarification both earn their place. It is perhaps too terse for the gaps it leaves.
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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior (status counts from recent access logs). However, neither parameter is explained and the meaning of 'recent' is unspecified, leaving an agent unsure how to control the scan scope.
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 0% for two parameters (limit, target), and the description never mentions either. 'Recent' weakly hints that limit controls the window, but what 'target' means (host, path, or log file) is left entirely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific verb (count) and resource (HTTP statuses) scoped to recent common/combined access logs, and the phrase 'without raw requests' signals an aggregated summary rather than log retrieval, which separates it from siblings like apache_error_log or apache_server_status. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to choose this over apache_server_status, apache_access_log-style retrieval, or apache_error_log. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the words 'count HTTP statuses', and no preconditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.