Retrieve logging configurations from Spring Boot Actuator endpoints. View all loggers or a specific logger's level.
Read /actuator/loggers or one logger.
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": "get_loggers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logger | No | ||
| application | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Read', implying idempotency. It does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or response characteristics.
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 extremely short, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but does not provide sufficient information for correct usage.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and parameters with zero description coverage, the description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially regarding parameter semantics and expected output.
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 0% and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters (logger, application), leaving their meaning and usage ambiguous.
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 'Read /actuator/loggers or one logger' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (actuator/loggers), and implies filtering by one logger, distinguishing it from sibling tools like change_logger_level or get_log_file.
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?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.