tailscale_get_log_stream_statusCheck whether configuration or network logs are being delivered successfully by retrieving the current log streaming status for a chosen log type.
Get the status of log streaming for a specific log type. Shows whether logs are being delivered successfully.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logType | Yes | The log type: 'configuration' for audit logs, 'network' for network flow logs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context about what 'status' means (successful delivery), but does not disclose anything further about rate limits, auth requirements, or response detail, so it is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the core verb+resource and zero wasted preamble. The second sentence slightly restates 'status' but usefully specifies that it concerns delivery success, so it mostly 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?
With one fully documented parameter, comprehensive safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-status tool. It could be slightly more informative about what the status payload includes, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
The single logType parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including enum values and their meanings, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description only restates 'for a specific log type' and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get the status of log streaming') and clarifies that it reports delivery health, which distinguishes it from the sibling config tools (get_log_stream_config, set_log_stream_config). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies usage by defining what the tool reports ('whether logs are being delivered successfully'), giving an agent enough context to infer when to call it. But it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the config-oriented siblings, so it remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.