Fetch stdout and stderr logs from remote background jobs in chunks by job ID, line offset, and max lines to enable paginated or incremental log reads.
分段或增量获取远程脱机后台作业的标准输出与错误日志
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | 目标后台作业 ID | |
| maxLines | No | 本次读取的最大行数，默认 200 行 | |
| offsetLines | No | 从第几行开始读取（0-indexed，用于分页与增量拉取），默认 0 | |
| connectionId | No | 目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it retrieves both stdout and stderr and that reads can be segmented/incremental, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it says nothing about auth/permission needs, behavior on a missing or still-running job, or whether log availability depends on job retention.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse, though the fragmentary phrasing offers no structural signposting for the reading/pagination model it hints at.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal: it identifies what is retrieved but not the return shape, ordering, or failure semantics an agent would want. The 100% schema coverage covers inputs, so the gap is mainly behavioral rather than fatal.
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 jobId, maxLines, offsetLines, and connectionId are all documented in the schema. The description's 分段/增量 wording loosely corresponds to the maxLines/offsetLines paging parameters but adds no syntax, units, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?
The description gives a specific verb (获取) and resource (远程脱机后台作业的标准输出与错误日志), making it clear this reads a detached background job's stdout/stderr. It is distinguishable from job-control siblings like ssh_job_status, ssh_job_start, or ssh_job_kill, though it does not name them.
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?
Phrases like 分段或增量获取 imply the intended usage pattern (paged/incremental log tailing), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (ssh_job_status for state, sftp_read_file for arbitrary files). Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.