Retrieves console messages from Qt applications, with severity-level filtering, to inspect runtime logs and diagnose UI issues.
Returns all console messages
Args: level: Level of the console messages to return. Each level includes the messages of more severe levels. Defaults to "info".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | info | |
| instance | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 discloses that higher levels include more severe messages, but it does not state whether this is read-only, whether it has side effects, what happens with instance selection, or any operational constraints.
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 short and front-loaded with the return behavior. The level explanation is useful, though the literal 'Args:' formatting is slightly awkward and the text is too sparse rather than verbose.
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 output schema exists, so return values need less explanation. But with zero annotation coverage, an undocumented instance parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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%, and the description only documents the level parameter. The instance parameter is completely absent from the description, leaving half of the input schema unexplained.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns all console messages. It also mentions level filtering, so an agent can understand the tool’s core purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling Qt inspection tools, 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?
The description gives the default level but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qt_signals, qt_thread_check, or other diagnostics-oriented siblings. There are no exclusions or routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.