Retrieve recent 100 logcat lines for a specified Android app package from a connected device, with optional filtering by DEBUG, WARNING, or ERROR log level.
从已连接的 Android 设备获取最近 100 行日志。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log_level | No | 日志过滤级别：DEBUG、WARNING 或 ERROR。 | DEBUG |
| app_package | Yes | 要获取日志的应用包名，例如 com.example.app。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful scope (only the last 100 lines) and the prerequisite that the device must be connected. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, blocking behavior, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and gives the key scope constraint immediately.
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?
An output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so the description need not explain parameters or return values. With no annotations and no usage context, however, it leaves gaps around when to use the tool and its safety profile for an agent to infer.
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%, so the schema already documents both app_package and log_level. The description mentions no parameter details and adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: get the most recent 100 lines of logcat output from a connected Android device. The resource is unique among siblings, so the purpose is clear even without naming an alternative. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, which is the only gap.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is given. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for log retrieval. There is no routing context toward or away from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.