EasyPanel MCP Server

by dannymaaz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

get_deployment_logs

Retrieve deployment logs for a specified deployment ID to troubleshoot issues and monitor application output.

Instructions

Get logs from a deployment.

Args: deployment_id: Deployment ID

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": {
      "deployment_id": "<deployment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_deployment_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deployment_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention log freshness, pagination/truncation, whether logs are live or historical, or any other behavioral traits beyond the verb 'Get'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' line is redundant with the schema but brief and not wordy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description leaves operational ambiguity: how to get a valid deployment_id, and how deployment logs differ from service logs, especially because get_service_logs exists as a sibling. This missing distinction is important for correct tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats 'deployment_id: Deployment ID', which restates the schema field title. It adds no guidance on id format, where to find a valid deployment_id, or how the id relates to deployments.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('logs from a deployment'), clearly indicating a read operation scoped to deployments. It distinguishes itself from get_service_logs by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_service_logs, how to obtain a deployment_id, or what prerequisites exist. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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