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/after parameters affect results). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling, which are critical for a search tool with 8 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 functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or what 'context' means, leaving gaps. The output schema mitigates some need for return value details, but the description lacks sufficient guidance for effective use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'time window', 'filtering', and 'context', without explaining the 8 parameters (e.g., minutes/hours/days for time, scope, overrides). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 as searching logs within a time window with optional filtering and context. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'logs', distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_log_all_records' by emphasizing time-based scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other time-based siblings (if any), keeping it from a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'search_log_all_records', 'search_log_first_n_records', and 'search_log_last_n_records', there is no indication of scenarios where this time-based search is preferred over those record-count-based searches, leaving the agent without usage context.

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