Log UI interaction events to trace user actions and diagnose issues in geospatial and statistical data workflows.
Log MCP-Apps UI interaction events for tracing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| eventType | Yes | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| timestamp | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| eventId | Yes | ||
| logPath | No | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It states that events are logged for tracing, implying a write operation, but discloses nothing about data persistence, retention, privacy, or whether this has side effects. For a telemetry tool, the lack of any behavioral caveat is a significant gap.
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 sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so sparse that it might be under-specified rather than efficiently concise, but as a structure it is clear and readable.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, or how to construct a valid event. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without external knowledge.
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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. It doesn't explain eventType, source, context, payload, sessionId, or timestamp. With 7 parameters including nested objects, the agent has no guidance on how to populate them, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 a verb ('Log') and a resource ('MCP-Apps UI interaction events') with an explicit purpose ('for tracing'). It distinguishes itself from the rendering siblings (os_apps_render_*) by implying a telemetry role, though it doesn't name an alternative or contrast explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention when logging is appropriate, how it relates to rendering tools, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer that it's for tracing UI interactions, which is not explicitly stated as a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.