Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_request_log

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full request details—headers and bodies—for any API key in your account to audit traffic and troubleshoot via request ID and timestamp. Confines access to your own requests only.

Instructions

Returns the full detail (bodies and headers) of a request made by you, with any of your API keys in this environment — including one made with a key other than the one you are authenticating with, because the axis is the person, not the individual credential.

  • {account_id}: authorizes the call; it does not widen what you can see.

  • 404: the request does not exist, was made by another user (including another user of this same account), or belongs to the other environment.

  • The widest read logs:read opens: it returns the bodies and headers that any key of yours exchanged in this environment, so a key holding only logs:read reads the traffic of your privileged keys too. It never crosses to another user or to another account. Grant it accordingly.

Endpoint: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/request-logs/{request_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timestampNoLog timestamp (the one returned by the list). Narrows the search window around that instant so the detail also works for logs older than the default window. If omitted, the default recent window is searched.
account_idYesAccount the call is authorized against. It does not widen the result set.
request_idYesCorrelation identifier (X-Request-Id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses important authorization behavior beyond the annotations: any of your keys are readable, account_id does not widen scope, 404 has ambiguous meanings, and the widest logs:read permission can read privileged traffic. These are meaningful security and behavioral warnings that significantly exceed the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then uses tight, purposeful bullets for scoping, 404, and security nuances. There is no filler; the endpoint line is a useful addition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description still provides enough to invoke correctly: what data is returned, how account_id scopes, and 404 semantics. It doesn't enumerate the response JSON shape or explicitly point to list_request_logs, but for a read-only detail endpoint that is a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for account_id ('authorizes the call; it does not widen what you can see') and reinforces request_id as the correlation identifier via the endpoint. This lifts the description above the schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full detail (bodies and headers) of a request made by you' and adds the cross-key nuance that any of your API keys are covered. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many get/list siblings by focusing on a single request's full log detail.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description frames when to use it—when full bodies and headers of a specific request are needed—and clarifies how account_id scopes the call. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_request_logs or state when not to use it, though the 'full detail' wording implies the list tool is for metadata.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools