Retrieve recent log entries for a given path, defaulting to 20, or read the root log. Filter root entries by path prefix to review recent activity or errors.
Last n entries (default 20) for path; empty = root log. A path filters root-log entries prefixed '[] ' (plus any pre-existing /log.md).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the default of 20 entries, that empty path means root log, and the exact filtering rule for prefixed entries plus pre-existing <path>/log.md. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 dense clauses, front-loaded with the core behavior (last n entries, default 20) before the path-filter detail. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and filtering behavior adequately, but it omits the return shape (e.g. formatting of entries) and any pagination or size limits that would help an agent use the result confidently.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines n's default (20) and both the empty and non-empty semantics of path, including the '[<path>] ' prefix filter. The remaining gap is minor, e.g. bounds or type constraints on n.
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 gives a specific verb (tail/return last entries) and resource (log entries for a path), and clarifies the default count and the empty-path case. It is clear on its own, though it never names the obvious sibling log_append to differentiate read-vs-write.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as log_append. Usage is only implied by the read semantics, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.