syslog_tail_toolTail recent log entries from a specific container or service, with optional severity filtering and a configurable limit for troubleshooting.
Return the most recent entries for one source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries to return. | |
| source | Yes | Container or service name. | |
| severity | No | Optional minimum severity. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether it reads live/streams, the ordering of results, how 'minimum severity' is interpreted, or that limit defaults to 50. Only the read-like nature and recency scope are conveyed.
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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 schema covers all parameters. However, for a no-annotation tool, key behavioral facts (live tail vs snapshot, ordering, severity semantics) remain undisclosed, leaving real gaps.
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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, source, severity) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return the most recent entries') with a clear scope ('for one source'), which distinguishes it from search/grep/stats siblings by implication. It does not explicitly name an alternative, 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to siblings like syslog_search_tool or syslog_context_tool. Only the phrase 'most recent' hints at its purpose, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.