Retrieve the tail of a spawned DOSBox instance's output to inspect emulator logs and diagnose program behavior. Specify n lines from the end or buffer all.
Tail of the spawned instance's output (untrusted machine output). Only covers an instance this bridge started.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | Number of lines from the end (default all buffered). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value on top: '(untrusted machine output)' warns the agent to treat the payload with suspicion, and the scoping clause discloses which instances are covered. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety annotation, though it doesn't describe buffering limits or what happens when nothing is buffered.
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 sentences, no filler. The trust warning is placed immediately after the core purpose, so the most important safety signal is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.
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?
For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and trust level adequately. Minor gaps — buffering behavior and how to obtain instance handles — exist but don't block correct invocation.
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% and the single parameter 'n' is fully documented there ('Number of lines from the end (default all buffered)'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the load.
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+resource: 'Tail of the spawned instance's output.' An agent can immediately tell this retrieves process output, and the scoping clause separates it from the other bridge_* tools (start/stop/status). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
'Only covers an instance this bridge started' gives a real applicability constraint — it won't return logs for arbitrary processes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no routing to siblings like bridge_status or bridge_help, and no mention of prerequisites for having an instance running. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.