router-ssh-mcp

service_logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recent service logs from OpenWrt or systemd routers by specifying the service name and optional line count, returning the tail output.

Instructions

读取服务日志尾部内容（OpenWrt 走 logread，systemd 走 journalctl）。

参数： name: 服务名 lines: 返回行数，1 <= lines <= ROUTER_MCP_MAX_LOG_LINES（默认 500）

返回结构： {"ok": true, "data": {"name", "requested_lines", "returned_lines", "source", "command", "truncated", "lines": [...] }}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "service_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`lines`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

注释已声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，安全概况清楚。描述在此基础上补充了执行细节（具体命令 logread/journalctl）和返回结构，包括 'truncated' 字段暗示可能截断，增强了行为透明度。没有与注释矛盾，且为只读工具提供了有用的上下文。

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

描述简洁且结构清晰：首句概括功能，随后分列参数，最后给出返回结构。无冗余信息，关键约束前置，便于快速理解。

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

对于简单的只读工具，描述涵盖了调用所需的核心信息：参数意义、返回结构、实现方式。虽有输出模式的定义在描述中而非独立 schema，但足够指导调用。未提及错误情况（如服务不存在）或平台差异的细节，略微不完整，但基于工具复杂度此描述已基本充足。

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema 覆盖率为 0%，描述完全承担参数解释：为 name 提供含义（服务名），为 lines 提供范围约束和上限说明（1 <= lines <= ROUTER_MCP_MAX_LOG_LINES，默认500）。这远超 Schema 中仅有类型和默认值的信息，有效补偿了 schema 的空白。不过默认值措辞存在一定模糊性（可能指上限默认值而非 lines 默认值），小有扣分。

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

描述明确说'读取服务日志尾部内容'，具体动词+资源，并指出底层实现（OpenWrt logread / systemd journalctl），与兄弟工具（service_status 查看状态、service_start 控制服务）明显区分。这比简单的'查看日志'更为具体，界定了范围。

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

描述暗示这是获取服务日志的专用工具，但没有明确说明何时使用它而非兄弟工具（如 run_shell 直接执行命令，或 service_status 查看状态）。没有提供使用场景的排除条件或替代说明，因此仅靠隐含语境，未给出明确指引。

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

Deploy Server