Fetch the most recent events from an active or completed TwinCAT recording to tail live signal data, with optional symbol filters and a last_n limit.
Most recent events of a running (or finished) recording — the live tail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| last_n | No | ||
| symbols | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool works on running or finished recordings and returns a 'live tail,' which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not cover pagination, rate limits, or output behavior (which the output schema may address).
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 or repetition. It is efficiently sized for its content, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps in parameter and usage guidance.
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 has one required and two optional parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate for any of them. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description omits essential input semantics and any usage context, making the definition incomplete for correct 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 three parameters (id, last_n, symbols) are present, yet the description mentions none of them. It adds no meaning about the required recording id, the last_n limit, or the symbols filter, leaving every parameter undocumented.
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 specific resource and scope — most recent events of a recording, described as a live tail. It clearly conveys what data the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as rec_read, rec_list, or rec_stats, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The phrase 'running (or finished) recording' and 'live tail' imply a live monitoring context, but the description never says when to choose this over rec_read, rec_list, or rec_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.