termix_docker_get_container_logsFetch logs from a specified Docker container by providing session and container IDs. Filter results with tail, since, until, or timestamps for targeted troubleshooting.
Get container logs. Retrieves logs for a specific container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tail | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| timestamps | No | ||
| containerId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention filtering semantics, output size, session requirements, or error behavior; 'for a specific container' merely restates the required containerId parameter.
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 text is short and front-loaded, but the two sentences are near-duplicates: 'Get container logs' and 'Retrieves logs for a specific container' add little to each other. It is not bloated, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficient coverage.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is not sufficient for correct invocation. The read-only annotations reduce safety concerns, so it is not a 1, but an agent still lacks essential context about sessionId and the log-filtering options.
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 0%, and the description explains none of the six parameters. An agent gets no help understanding that sessionId identifies the Docker session or what tail, since, until, and timestamps control, leaving correct invocation mostly to guesswork.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'/'Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource as container logs for a specific container. It is unambiguous at a high level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_container_details or get_container_stats beyond the word 'logs'.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as an active Docker session, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied 'logs' purpose, which is not enough to route an agent confidently among the many Docker sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.