query_system_logsQuery system logs across platforms using journalctl or Get-WinEvent to inspect recent events and diagnose issues, with a configurable limit.
Cross-platform log querying (journalctl or Get-WinEvent).
CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.deep-introspection-telemetry: Deep Introspection Telemetry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of events to fetch |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context by disclosing the two platform-specific backends, implying output shape differs by OS, but says nothing about privilege requirements (journalctl often needs elevated access), the absence of time/source filters, or result volume.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.deep-introspection-telemetry: Deep Introspection Telemetry' is internal taxonomy jargon that consumes space without helping an agent decide or call. Half the text is non-functional.
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 rich annotations and an output schema, the definition is serviceable, but for a log-query tool the agent still lacks essentials: which log sources/time ranges are in scope, whether filters exist at all, and what privileges are needed. Enough to call it, not enough to call it well.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Max number of events to fetch'), so the schema fully carries its meaning. The description adds nothing about the limit's effect on performance or the result window; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('log querying') and discloses the underlying implementations (journalctl / Get-WinEvent), which tells an agent what data it will actually get. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as capture_system_snapshot or start_system_trace, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though the sibling list contains overlapping diagnostic tools (capture_system_snapshot, start_system_trace, health_check). The only signal is the tool name itself, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.