zima-mcp

zima_container_logs

Tail recent logs from a named Docker container to diagnose issues and inspect runtime output, with an optional line count for focused troubleshooting.

Instructions

Tail recent logs for one named container.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "container": "<container>"
    },
    "name": "zima_container_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lines`	No	Lines to tail (default 80, max 500).
`container`	Yes	Container name, e.g. immich-server.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it blocks or follows the stream, whether output is bounded, or what happens if the container is missing. 'Recent' is the only behavioral hint and it is undefined in the prose (the 80/500 bound lives in the schema).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves open whether the result is a bounded string, whether the call streams/blocks, and what failure looks like.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'container' (name, example) and 'lines' (default 80, max 500) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the singular-container constraint and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('tail logs') scoped to one named container, which is enough to distinguish it from zima_docker_ps (listing) and zima_restart_container (mutation). It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. container must be running), and no mention of alternatives for viewing logs versus other container inspection tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and purpose.

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

Deploy Server