inspect-logs-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it specifies the file type ('.eval log files'), sorting behavior ('sorted by date, newest first'), and return metadata details. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, permissions needed to access the directory, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'List').

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 a clear purpose statement, followed by behavioral details, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section is slightly verbose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters thoroughly and gives behavioral context like sorting and metadata returned. However, it doesn't describe the output format in detail (e.g., structure of returned metadata), error conditions, or dependencies on environment variables, which could hinder agent usage.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: 'log_dir' (directory with default from env var), 'limit' (max logs with defaults and max value), and 'offset' (pagination). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, explaining defaults, constraints, and usage context effectively.

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: 'List available evaluation log files with metadata.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('evaluation log files'), and scope ('with metadata'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tool_search_logs' or 'tool_get_eval_summary', which prevents a perfect score.

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_search_logs' (which might filter logs) or 'tool_get_eval_summary' (which might provide summaries), leaving the agent without context for tool selection. Usage is implied only through the action of listing logs.

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