Log Analyzer MCP

Does 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 mentions 'with context' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., how context_before and context_after affect results), nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It hints at filtering and context but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'scope and content patterns, with context,' which loosely maps to some parameters (scope, log_content_patterns_override, context_before/after) but doesn't explain their semantics, defaults, or interactions. It omits log_dirs_override entirely, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for all log records' with optional filtering by 'scope and content patterns, with context.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (log records) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_log_first_n_records or search_log_time_based, which would require 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like search_log_first_n_records or search_log_time_based, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.