inspect-logs-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what data is returned but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), performance implications, or how verbose 'include_events' might be. The mention of 'can be verbose' for include_events adds some context, but overall disclosure is minimal for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 description is well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, details the return data, and lists parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy. Minor improvements could include bullet points for readability, but it's efficient overall.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, performance) and doesn't fully address sibling tool differentiation. For a data retrieval tool with multiple inputs, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear 'Args' section explaining all 5 parameters, including defaults and brief semantics (e.g., 'Path to log file', 'Sample ID to retrieve', 'Include event transcript'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed sample data including full conversation history' and specifies what data is returned (input, target, messages, output, scores, metadata). It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and identifies the resource ('sample data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tool_list_logs or tool_search_logs, which might also retrieve log/sample data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like tool_list_logs or tool_search_logs, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is retrieving detailed sample data, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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