Retrieves log content from a target server by IP address over HTTP. Specify an optional port and log path to customize the request.
从指定的IP地址获取日志内容
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | 目标服务器的IP地址 | |
| path | No | 日志路径（可选，默认为/logs） | /logs |
| port | No | 目标服务器的端口号（可选，默认为28668） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what network side effects occur, what the response format is, or how errors are reported.
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 filler. It communicates the core purpose in eight Chinese characters, which is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple and all parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits information about expected return content, possible failure modes, and any protocol assumptions. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents ip, path, and port including defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond identifying the target IP; it neither enhances nor contradicts the parameter definitions.
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-resource pair ('获取日志内容' / fetch log content) and scopes it to a specified IP address, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is somewhat generic because the type of logs is not specified, but there are no sibling tools to differentiate against.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (whenever logs from a given IP are needed), but it provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not mislead, but it leaves usage decisions largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.