List the available Logpush fields for a specific dataset in a Cloudflare account.
List the available Logpush fields for a specific dataset in a Cloudflare account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | required,The ID of the Cloudflare account | |
| dataset_id | Yes | required,The Logpush dataset ID (e.g. http_requests, audit_logs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation, but says nothing about pagination, result size, required permissions, or account validation, leaving the behavioral profile largely undocumented.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent one more clause on sibling differentiation without bloating.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only listing with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The missing piece is disambiguation from the many related log/list siblings, which an agent genuinely needs here.
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 100% and both required parameters are documented with an example for dataset_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation nuance beyond naming dataset and account conceptually, matching the baseline for a fully covered 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?
States a specific verb (List) plus resource (Logpush fields) scoped to a dataset within a Cloudflare account, which is clear and concrete. However, it fails to distinguish this account-scoped tool from the near-identical sibling `list_logpush_dataset_fields`, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The presence of `list_logpush_dataset_fields` as a sibling makes the absence of any disambiguation guidance a real gap, since selecting between them requires inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.