netrun_logsRetrieve the latest application output (stdout/stderr) for a project to diagnose silent bots and site errors.
Last lines of the application output (stdout/stderr) — the first place to look when a bot is silent or a site errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | How many trailing lines to return | |
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context about it being a diagnostic tool (stdout/stderr) but does not mention potential large output or that it's just a trailing view. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with zero filler.
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 simple read-only log retrieval tool with schema coverage on the optional parameter, the description is sufficient. It doesn't mention the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, the absence is minor.
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 50%, with 'lines' already having a description. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. However, it implies 'lines' is for trailing lines, which aligns, but no extra value added.
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 clearly states the tool returns the last lines of application output, which is a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself by positioning as the first place to look when diagnosing issues, which differentiates it from siblings like status or control.
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?
It gives a clear context for when to use ('first place to look when a bot is silent or a site errors'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Still, the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.