read_pipeline_run_logsAccess stored logs for any project pipeline run. Filter by step, host, or run to debug failures and audit execution history.
Read stored logs for one project-level pipeline run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| host_id | No | ||
| step_name | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| pipeline_id | Yes | ||
| project_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true matches the 'Read' action, so there is no contradiction. The description adds scope context (stored logs, project-level run) but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or output behavior, which are left to the agent's inference.
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 a single clear sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is grossly insufficient. It fails to cover parameter meanings, return format, or when to choose this tool over many logging-related siblings, leaving the agent underinformed.
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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Required params pipeline_id and run_id are implied by the name, but limit, before, host_id, step_name, project_id, and project_name are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without essential guidance.
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 verb 'read' and the resource 'stored logs for one project-level pipeline run', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like tail_logs or search_logs. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tail_logs, follow_logs, or search_logs. The description neither states explicit use cases nor contrasts with other logging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.