windows-debug-mcp

by emyk

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_event_logs

Discover available Windows event logs with a name filter to find which logs contain records for querying event data.

Instructions

List the Windows event logs that contain records.

Use this to discover which log to query. Names like "System", "Application" and "Microsoft-Windows-Kernel-Power/Operational" are what query_event_log expects.

Args: name_filter: Optional wildcard, e.g. "Kernel" or "Microsoft-Windows-Diag*".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_event_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately indicates read-only nature (listing logs) and mentions what to expect (names). However, it does not discuss any potential side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond the basic operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: three sentences plus Args section. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required inputs), the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes 'name_filter' as an optional wildcard with examples like '*Kernel*', adding meaning beyond the schema's empty description. This provides clear usage guidance for the single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'List the Windows event logs that contain records' with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'query_event_log' by positioning this as a discovery tool, and provides concrete name examples.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this to discover which log to query', giving context for when to invoke. Mentions name_filter with wildcard usage and connects to query_event_log. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple discovery tool.

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