Clear system event logs on Redfish-enabled hardware to remove old entries and free up space.
Clear system event logs
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": "redfish_clear_logs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log_type | No | System |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates the destructive action ('clear') but omits critical details: that logs are permanently deleted, whether confirmation is required, scope (all systems vs. specific type), and potential authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, earning the highest score for efficiency.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description lacks essential context for a destructive operation: irreversibility, affected scope, return values, and any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to safely infer the full behavior and consequences.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'log_type' parameter beyond implying 'system' logs. It doesn't enumerate valid values, clarify the default behavior, or indicate whether other types like 'Manager' or 'Audit' are supported. The description adds only marginal meaning, leaving the parameter semantically ambiguous.
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 clearly states the action ('Clear') and resource ('system event logs'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that mostly retrieve or manage data. However, it does not clarify whether 'system event logs' refers to a specific log type (only one of many possible log_type values) or all logs, leaving slight ambiguity given the existence of manager logs and audit logs among siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. For example, it doesn't mention when clearing is appropriate (e.g., after reading logs) or that viewing logs should be done with redfish_get_manager_logs or redfish_get_audit_logs. The one-sentence description gives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.