Skip to main content
Glama

bridge.logs

bridge_logs

Retrieve the errors and warnings your React Native or Expo app logged, newest last. Filter by level, cap the count, or clear the log to diagnose runtime issues.

Instructions

Errors and warnings the app logged, newest last. Options: {level: "error"|"warn"|"all", limit, clear}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoThe tool's arguments, in order (each any JSON value). Leave out for none.
fullNoReturn a result over 32 KB whole instead of a summary of its size and shape.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 behavior disclosure. It usefully notes that results are ordered oldest-to-newest, but it lists 'clear' as a mere option without stating that clearing is destructive, whether it is reversible, or what happens to previously captured logs.

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 two short sentences, and the key information (what is returned and the result order) comes first. The option list is compact, though the curly-brace notation is slightly cryptic.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple read tool, but there is no output schema and no explanation of the log entry shape or of the interaction with the 'full' parameter. The essentials for calling it are present; the gaps are moderate.

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 coverage is 100% for the two declared parameters, but those are generic wrapper fields ('args', 'full'), and the real options live inside 'args'. The description compensates by naming 'level', 'limit', and 'clear', and gives the enum values for level, but does not explain the meaning or defaults of 'limit' or the behavior of 'clear'.

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 the resource and content precisely: 'Errors and warnings the app logged', plus the ordering ('newest last'). It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools, but the name and phrasing are distinctive enough that an agent can identify it as the log-retrieval tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'Options' implies the tool takes configuration but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives among the siblings (for example, other bridge tools) or of any prerequisite context.

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