Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vercel-mcp-pro

vercel-mcp-pro

by helbertparanhos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_log_drains

List configured log drains for shipping deployment logs, with optional filtering by project or team.

Instructions

List configurable log drains (where deployment logs are shipped).

Tool call template

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": "list_log_drains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoFilter by project id.
teamIdNoTeam ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
slugNoTeam slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists log drains, but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a list operation, minimal disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, but the phrase 'configurable log drains' is slightly redundant. Still, it is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details like return format, pagination, or permissions that would fully inform an agent. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'list' and specifies the resource 'configurable log drains', with a parenthetical explanation of their purpose. It is clear and distinct from mutation tools like create_log_drain and delete_log_drain, but does not differentiate from other list_* siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_webhooks or list_deployments. Lacks any context about filtering or prerequisites, leaving the agent without situational advice.

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