List Logpush jobs for a specific dataset in a Cloudflare account.
List Logpush jobs 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only implies a read via the verb 'List'. It says nothing about auth/permission requirements, pagination, result limits, or ordering behavior for what is presumably a read-only listing.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping constraint (specific dataset, account) is stated immediately. It is efficient, though sparse enough that it earns no extra credit for structure.
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 list tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return shape, pagination, and filtering behavior entirely unexplained, so it falls short of complete.
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 the schema already documents both parameters, including an example dataset ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?
Specific verb+resource (list Logpush jobs) with clear scoping to a specific dataset within an account. It implicitly separates itself from broad siblings like list_logpush_jobs, though it never explicitly distinguishes list_logpush_dataset_jobs from list_account_logpush_dataset_jobs.
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, or alternative routing is provided. With near-identical siblings (list_logpush_jobs, list_logpush_dataset_jobs, list_account_logpush_jobs) the absence of routing guidance is a real gap; usage must be inferred from the resource noun alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.