SapperMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Log Files

list_log_files

Lists log files in a specified directory, newest first, to help locate recent activity for debugging or security review.

Instructions

List log files under /var/log (or another dir), newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`pattern`	No
`directory`	No	/var/log
`max_entries`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the ordering ('newest first') but is silent on whether the listing recurses into subdirectories, whether it follows symlinks, what read permissions are required, or how max_entries truncation is surfaced to the caller.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and default location, ending with the ordering detail. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical '(or another dir)' is a vague gesture that could have carried real parameter meaning instead.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is fairly excused, but for a three-parameter filesystem tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves pattern matching and result capping entirely undefined. An agent can call it with defaults but cannot confidently use 'pattern' or predict truncation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters and does not. It implies the directory override, but 'pattern' is never mentioned (glob? substring? regex?) and 'max_entries' is never mentioned despite its default of 300 and the truncation behavior that implies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('log files') with a default location (/var/log) and an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It is clear what the tool returns at a glance, though it never names the sibling read_log_file to draw the listing-vs-reading line.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It implies the obvious case (enumerate logs) but offers no when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as read_log_file for contents or search_files for matching. '(or another dir)' hints at the directory override but states no condition or prerequisite for using it.

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

Deploy Server