clockwork-mcp-remote

get_logs

Retrieve log entries for a Clockwork request, with optional minimum log level filtering, to inspect application activity and diagnose problems.

Instructions

Get log entries for a request

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "get_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	No	Minimum log level
`token`	No	Pre-authenticated X-Clockwork-Auth token (alternative to password)
`baseUrl`	No	Clockwork application base URL (e.g. https://my-app.test). Overrides CLOCKWORK_BASE_URL / local storage for this call
`password`	No	Clockwork authentication password
`username`	No	Clockwork authentication username
`requestId`	Yes	Clockwork request ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get log entries for a request' indicates a read operation but provides no context on authentication, error handling, log format, or filtering semantics. The level parameter implies filtering, but the description does not explain its effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it carries minimal information; nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It omits when-to-use guidance, return format, auth requirements, and differentiation from the many log-related siblings such as get_log_stack_trace.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the purpose of the level filter or the token/password authentication alternatives.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('log entries for a request'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_requests or get_request. It is terse but not ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_log_stack_trace or get_request. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as an active Clockwork connection, nor does it direct the agent to a more specific sibling.

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