MCP SteamOS Devkit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

journalctl_tail

Tail journal logs for a specific user or system service unit on a SteamOS Devkit device. Use this tool to monitor real-time log output by specifying the unit name and target.

Instructions

Tail bounded journal lines for a specific user or system service unit.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "unit": "<unit>"
    },
    "name": "journalctl_tail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`unit`	Yes
`lines`	No
`login`	No
`scope`	No	user
`target`	Yes
`http_port`	No
`name_type`	No	guess

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'bounded' but does not explain what that means (e.g., number of lines, polling vs. one-shot). It also omits how the tool connects to the target (likely remote) and any side effects, leaving behavioral uncertainty.

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 description is a single concise sentence, but given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions), it is too terse. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

With 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine valid unit names, the role of 'target', or how 'scope' and 'login' interact. Output schema exists, but behavior is still opaque.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only vaguely references 'user or system service unit' but does not map to specific parameters or clarify the roles of 'target', 'unit', 'login', 'scope', etc. No parameter meanings are conveyed.

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 clearly states the action ('tail') and resource ('journal lines') with scoping ('for a specific user or system service unit'). It is distinct from sibling tools like adb_logcat or coredump_list, which target different log sources.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use journalctl_tail vs. adb_logcat). No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is provided.

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

Deploy Server