AgentsID Guard

Official

by AgentsID-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

container_logs

Fetch Docker container logs by ID or name. Set tail to control the number of recent lines returned.

Instructions

View Docker container logs. Requires container.read permission.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "container_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Container ID or name
`tail`	No	Number of lines from the end (default: 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only discloses a permission requirement, but does not mention return format, pagination, streaming, or that it defaults to 50 lines (though tail default is in schema). No side effects or limitations are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences. The permission note is useful and adds context without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema and few annotations, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context such as what the logs look like, whether logs are streamed, or any error conditions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'id' and 'tail' - it simply restates the tool's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('Docker container logs'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like container_list (list containers) or log_read (system logs). It precisely states the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 vs alternatives. It only mentions a permission requirement, not when it is appropriate to choose this over container_inspect or log_read, nor any exclusions.

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