Retrieve recent TeamSpeak 3 server log entries to review activity, errors, or events. Configure line count, ordering, and log type for targeted troubleshooting.
View recent entries from the virtual server log
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | Number of log lines to retrieve | |
| reverse | No | Newest first | |
| begin_pos | No | Starting position in log file | |
| instance_log | No | Show instance log instead of virtual server log |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only gestures at "recent entries" without stating that output is bounded (default 50, max 100 lines), that it is read-only, whether permissions are required, or what the return looks like. It adds almost no behavioral context an agent couldn't infer from the verbs.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized, though perhaps too terse to be maximally useful.
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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any guidance on output format, the instance-vs-virtual-server distinction, or relationship to sibling diagnostic tools. An agent can call it, but with less confidence than a richer definition would give.
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 every parameter (lines, reverse, begin_pos, instance_log) is documented in the schema itself with defaults and bounds. The description adds no format, paging, or positional semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("View") and a specific resource ("virtual server log"), so the agent knows this is a read of log entries. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings like server_diagnose or server_info, which could plausibly also surface log/status output.
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?
The description gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus server_diagnose or server_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the word "View" and "recent entries".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.