Read recent logs from a Docker container to inspect errors, crashes, or runtime output without modifying the container.
Read recent logs of a Docker container (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Server name from HOMELAB_HOSTS (e.g. 'sil-baru'). Omit to run on the local machine. | |
| tail | No | Number of log lines (default 50, max 500) | |
| container | Yes | Container name (from docker_ps) |
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 usefully states that the operation is read-only, which is the key safety trait, but it does not describe error behavior, remote-host implications, or output characteristics beyond what the schema already encodes.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is easy to scan and every word contributes to identifying the tool's action and target.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It identifies the operation and safety profile; only minor return-value context is missing.
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 all three parameters (host, tail, container) are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read recent logs of a Docker container'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as docker_stats or read_file, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The intended use is implied: inspect recent container logs. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites, so it is only minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.