Review the audit trail of data sent from this machine, with the most recent entries listed last. Specify the number of lines to display, making it easy to track outgoing activity and verify system actions.
Show what this tool has sent off the machine, most recent last.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Show', and indicates the output ordering. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or whether the log is session-scoped or persistent. For a simple read-only tool, this is minimal but acceptable.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and ordering constraint. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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 is simple and has an output schema, so the return shape need not be described. However, the 'lines' parameter is undocumented both in schema and description, leaving the agent without clarity on its effect. The description is otherwise sufficient for a basic audit log, but the parameter gap lowers 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%, and the description does not mention the 'lines' parameter or its meaning. An agent is left to guess that 'lines' controls the number of log entries returned. Since the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter, this is a significant gap.
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 verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('what this tool has sent off the machine'), and specifies ordering ('most recent last'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lit_search or configure, which have unrelated purposes.
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 a clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to see what the tool has sent. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but since it is a unique audit function among the siblings, the usage is adequately implied. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.