Capture device syslog for a specified duration to diagnose crashes. Optionally filter by text or process name while launching the app to capture crash reasons.
Capture the device syslog for N seconds (max 120), optionally filtered by text or process name. Launch the app on the phone while this runs to catch crash reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | No | ||
| match | No | ||
| process | No | Runner | |
| seconds | 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 the behavioral burden. It discloses the time limit (max 120 seconds) and optional filtering, but says nothing about output format (returned text? saved file?), whether it requires a connected device, or any side effects beyond capture. This is some value but incomplete.
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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The core action, limits, and filters are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a concrete usage tip. Excellent economy.
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?
Despite the clear purpose, the description lacks essential operational details: what does the tool return (logs inline, file path?), what is the default udid behavior, and what are the process default ('Runner') and seconds default (15). Without an output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's response. This is a meaningful gap.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'filtered by text or process name' (match, process) and 'N seconds' (seconds), but omits 'udid' entirely. With 4 parameters and 3 partially explained, this earns a 3.
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 states a specific action ('Capture the device syslog'), the resource ('device syslog'), and key modifiers (duration, filters). It clearly distinguishes from simulator log tools like mac_simulator_logs by specifying 'device'.
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?
Provides practical usage context: 'Launch the app on the phone while this runs to catch crash reasons.' It implicitly tells when to use (debugging crash reasons) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which costs one point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.