member_logs_getRead logs from a database cluster member process to inspect recent output, filter by time, limit returned lines, or paginate using a cursor.
Read logs for a member process
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| member | Yes | ||
| cluster | Yes | ||
| process | No | Must be one of the cluster provider catalog's processes, or agent. | |
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of how log lines are fetched (streamed vs snapshot), what ordering is used, whether logs persist after a process restarts, or any rate/size constraints.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded but earns no place: it duplicates the title verbatim and conveys no information an agent does not already have from the name. Conciseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and pagination plus time-window inputs, this tool needs substantially more description than one duplicated sentence. Nothing tells the agent how to page with cursor, how since interacts with lines, or what the returned log records look like, leaving the definition inadequate 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 only 14%, so the description is expected to compensate for the six undocumented parameters (lines, since, cursor, member, cluster, process). It only echoes 'member process', giving no meaning for cursor-based pagination, the 'since' timestamp semantics, or the default 100 / max 10000 lines behavior; the single documented parameter (process) already has its description in the 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: nothing distinguishes it from events_list or cluster_diagnose, and no prerequisites (cluster reachability, permissions on the member's namespace) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.