Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-podman-crunchtools

mcp-podman-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Container Logs Tool

container_logs_tool
Read-only

Retrieve Podman container logs by name or ID, with options for tail lines, timestamps, and since-time filtering to troubleshoot running containers.

Instructions

Get container logs.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "container_logs_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesContainer name or ID
tailNoNumber of lines from the end of the logs. Defaults to the last 200; Podman's own default is the whole history, which for a long-running container is megabytes. Ask for more to go further back.
sinceNoShow logs since timestamp (RFC3339, e.g. "YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ")
timestampsNoAdd timestamps to each log line

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / tail / description
      Previous value: -"Number of lines from the end of the logs"New value: +"Number of lines from the end of the logs. Defaults to the last\n200; Podman's own default is the whole history, which for a\nlong-running container is megabytes. Ask for more to go further\nback."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"Show logs since timestamp (e.g. \"2024-01-01T00:00:00Z\")"New value: +"Show logs since timestamp (RFC3339, e.g. \"YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ\")"
  3. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that logs are streamed or truncated, that the default tail is 200 lines, or that the container must exist and be running, all of which matter for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no structure to speak of because there is only one short clause.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description need not explain return values or parameters. However, for a tool whose behavior depends on container state and log truncation, the description leaves the agent without usage context that the structured fields do not supply.

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 name, tail, since, and timestamps all documented in the schema, including the non-obvious 200-line default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get container logs" states a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell it retrieves log output rather than inspecting or listing containers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like container_inspect_tool, which also surfaces container data, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as container_inspect_tool for metadata versus logs for output. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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