Filters application logs by service, level, or keyword to return matching entries with timestamps and trace IDs, aiding in debugging and security analysis.
Searches application logs by service name, log level, or keyword. Returns matching log entries with timestamps and trace IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Filter by minimum log level | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword in log message | |
| service | No | Filter by service name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It partially discharges this by disclosing the return payload shape (log entries with timestamps and trace IDs), but says nothing about result volume, pagination/limits, time-range scoping, or whether the search is unbounded — notable since there is no time-range parameter at all.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the return summary. Every clause earns its place.
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 3-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it covers purpose and return fields but omits result limits, time scoping, and any routing against the sibling observability tools that could query overlapping data.
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%, so each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same three filters (service, level, keyword) without adding format, matching semantics, or default behavior, so the 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?
States a specific verb (searches) and resource (application logs) plus the three filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from the metric/event/vulnerability siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_prometheus_metrics or get_kubernetes-events, which are the nearest adjacent observability tools.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when log search is preferable to the sibling observability tools (metrics, kubernetes events) or what prerequisites exist, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.