Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bugezy

bugezy

by fox100039-design
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_console_logs

Retrieve console warnings and errors from a bug report by providing the report ID.

Instructions

取得報告中的 Console 記錄（warn/error）。Get console logs (warn/error).

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": {
      "report_id": "<report_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_console_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_idYes報告 ID（report_id）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that only warn and error logs are returned, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the input schema. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits other behavioral details like read-only nature, error handling, or pagination. The inclusion of log level is minimally adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences in bilingual format with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding significant length.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, error behavior, or side effects. The minimum viable description for a tool with one parameter is present, but it lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter report_id, which is already described clearly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'console logs (warn/error)' from a report. It specifies the log level, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_network_errors, which also retrieve error-related data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_network_errors or get_rrweb_events. There is no information about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what context would make it the best choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools