Fetch the last lines of a container's logs with optional time filters and automatic masking of password or token values.
Show the last lines of a container's log. since like 10m, 2h, or 2026-10-11.
Secrets that look like password or token values are hidden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| tail | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| container | Yes |
| 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 burden. It usefully discloses that password/token-looking values are redacted in output, which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise not know. However it says nothing about whether the container must be running, whether the call is read-only/safe, or whether output is a snapshot vs stream, which matters for a zero-annotation tool.
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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing redaction note is separated by a stray blank line but is still brief and 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. What remains missing is meaningful for a 4-param, unannotated tool: the semantics of `host`, whether tail defaults to 100 lines, and any prerequisite that the container exist or be running.
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 for all four parameters. It explains the `since` format well ('10m, 2h, or 2026-10-11') and 'last lines' hints at `tail`, but `host` (default empty string) is entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell what a host means here or whether it may be omitted.
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: 'Show the last lines of a container's log.' An agent immediately understands it is a read of container logs. It does not differentiate from the sibling docker_stack_logs, which is a plausible confusion point, 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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as docker_stack_logs (stack-level) or docker_inspect. The 'since like 10m, 2h...' sentence documents a parameter format, not usage selection, so the agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.