Tail a Docker container's merged stdout and stderr logs on a remote SSH host to inspect runtime output by container name or ID, with configurable tail count and time filters.
Tail a container's logs (stdout and stderr merged).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| tail | No | ||
| since | No | e.g. 30m, 2h, 2026-10-26T10:00 | |
| container | Yes | Container name or id | |
| max_chars | No | Per-stream output cap, default 8000 |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully states that stdout and stderr are merged, but it does not disclose whether the call streams/follows, blocks, requires Docker permissions, is read-only, or how output is capped.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with five parameters.
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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, whether logs are followed, permission requirements, or the roles of the remaining parameters.
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 description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. With only 60% schema description coverage, important parameters such as host and tail are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Tail') and resource ('container's logs') and clarifies that stdout and stderr are merged. It does not differentiate this from sibling tools such as docker_exec or exec, so it stops 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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of docker_exec, exec, or other siblings, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the word 'Tail'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.