lucky_web_logsRead recent access logs by hostname, route, or entire web module to diagnose 502 errors. Filter results by domain, rule, route, and limit.
Read recent access logs for a hostname, a route, or the whole web module. Useful for 502 debugging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| rule_key | No | ||
| route_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read' verb is consistent with these. It adds the 'recent' qualifier and the filtering scope, but doesn't describe the return format or pagination. No contradiction, and the added value is modest given annotation coverage.
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 compact sentences with no filler; the scoping and resource are front-loaded and the use case earns its place in the second sentence. Efficient and appropriately short.
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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the limit semantics, the rule_key/route_key difference, or what the log output looks like. An agent would need additional probing to call it with confidence.
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 carries full burden for the 4 parameters. It maps 'hostname' to domain and 'route' to route_key, but leaves the rule_key vs route_key distinction ambiguous and says nothing about limit. It only partially compensates for the absent schema descriptions.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('recent access logs') with explicit scoping across hostname, route, or whole web module. The 'web module' scoping differentiates it from sibling log tools (cron_logs, ftp_logs, webdav_logs, etc.) reasonably well, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives a concrete use case ('Useful for 502 debugging'), which signals intent. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or named alternatives — an agent has to infer when to pick this over the many other log-reading siblings rather than being routed explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.