Skip to main content
Glama
amitdeshmukh

stdout-mcp-server

by amitdeshmukh

get-logs

Retrieve and filter application logs from named pipes to monitor output and debug issues in development environments.

Instructions

Retrieve logs from the named pipe with optional filtering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesNoNumber of log lines to return
filterNoText to filter logs by
sinceNoTimestamp to get logs after

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the get-logs tool: copies logStore, applies optional filter and since filters, slices last N lines, reverses to chronological order, returns as JSON-formatted text content block.
    async ({ lines, filter, since }) => {
      try {
        let logs = [...logStore];
    
        if (filter) {
          logs = logs.filter((entry) =>
            entry.message.toLowerCase().includes(filter.toLowerCase()),
          );
        }
    
        if (since) {
          logs = logs.filter((entry) => {
            const timestamp = new Date(entry.timestamp).getTime();
            return timestamp > since;
          });
        }
    
        // Take the last N lines and reverse them so oldest is first
        logs = logs.slice(-lines).reverse();
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(logs, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        logJson(`Error retrieving logs: ${error}`);
        throw new Error("Failed to retrieve logs");
      }
    },
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for the get-logs tool: lines (optional, default 50), filter (optional string), since (optional timestamp number).
    {
      lines: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .default(50)
        .describe("Number of log lines to return"),
      filter: z.string().optional().describe("Text to filter logs by"),
      since: z.number().optional().describe("Timestamp to get logs after"),
    },
  • src/index.ts:166-211 (registration)
    Registers the get-logs tool on the MCP server with name, description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool(
      "get-logs",
      "Retrieve logs from the named pipe with optional filtering",
      {
        lines: z
          .number()
          .optional()
          .default(50)
          .describe("Number of log lines to return"),
        filter: z.string().optional().describe("Text to filter logs by"),
        since: z.number().optional().describe("Timestamp to get logs after"),
      },
      async ({ lines, filter, since }) => {
        try {
          let logs = [...logStore];
    
          if (filter) {
            logs = logs.filter((entry) =>
              entry.message.toLowerCase().includes(filter.toLowerCase()),
            );
          }
    
          if (since) {
            logs = logs.filter((entry) => {
              const timestamp = new Date(entry.timestamp).getTime();
              return timestamp > since;
            });
          }
    
          // Take the last N lines and reverse them so oldest is first
          logs = logs.slice(-lines).reverse();
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(logs, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          logJson(`Error retrieving logs: ${error}`);
          throw new Error("Failed to retrieve logs");
        }
      },
    );
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of log entries stored in logStore, used by the handler.
    interface LogEntry {
      timestamp: string;
      message: string;
    }
  • In-memory array storing the recent log entries (up to MAX_STORED_LOGS=100), populated by the file watcher, directly used by the get-logs handler.
    const logStore: LogEntry[] = [];
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves logs but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, which are essential for effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve logs') and resource ('from the named pipe'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since there are none, so it cannot earn the full 5 points for sibling differentiation.

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?

The description mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts. With no sibling tools, it lacks explicit when/when-not instructions, resulting in minimal usage guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/amitdeshmukh/stdout-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server