Logpush MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves error logs and exceptions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no errors exist for the date. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences, with each sentence earning its place by defining the tool, detailing parameters, and specifying the return type. However, the front-loading could be slightly improved by integrating usage context earlier.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. The output schema exists (Returns specifies a Dict), so return values don't need explanation, but the tool's interaction with siblings and operational constraints are underdeveloped. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in a moderately complex context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining all 4 parameters: date format (YYYYMMDD), environment options (production or staging), script_name as an optional filter, and limit with default 50. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and complete.

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: 'Get error logs and exceptions for a specific date.' It specifies the resource (error logs/exceptions) and verb (get), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_latest or search_logs, which might also retrieve error-related data. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 like get_latest, search_logs, or list_log_dates. It mentions filtering by date and optional script_name, but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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