Retrieve recent Pi-hole log entries from dnsmasq, ftl, or webserver logs. Pass next_id from a previous response to fetch only newer entries.
Get the last lines entries of a Pi-hole log ('dnsmasq', 'ftl', 'webserver').
Pass next_id from a previous response to get only newer entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log | No | dnsmasq | |
| lines | No | ||
| next_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / next_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the incremental-fetch behavior via next_id, which is a real behavioral trait, but is silent on ordering of returned entries, what happens when `lines` exceeds available entries, permission/auth requirements, and rate limits.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the pagination hint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the essential incremental-fetch pattern. It could still clarify ordering and how this differs from get_query_log, but for a simple read tool it is largely complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for next_id (resume/incremental semantics not derivable from the schema) and restates `lines`, while the `log` enum values merely duplicate the schema enum. Two of three parameters remain only thinly characterized.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the last `lines` entries of a Pi-hole log') and enumerates the three valid log types, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with log-adjacent siblings such as get_query_log or flush_logs, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives one concrete usage instruction — pass next_id from a previous response to fetch only newer entries — which implies an incremental-polling workflow. However, it never says when to choose this tool over get_query_log or the other history/stats siblings, so usage is only partially guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.