docker_logsRetrieve and tail logs from a Docker container to monitor its output in real time.
Tail logs of a container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | ||
| container | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of 'tailing' (recent log lines) but does not clarify whether the tool streams continuously or returns a one-shot snapshot, nor how the 'lines' parameter affects behavior.
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 sentence with no filler; it is immediately readable and front-loaded. No words are wasted.
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 log tool with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits whether the operation blocks/follows, how to specify the container, and how it differs from other log tools. The output schema and readOnlyHint fill some gaps, but the vague 'Tail' behavior leaves important runtime uncertainty.
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 does not elaborate on either parameter. 'container' and 'lines' are self-evident from their names, but the description fails to explain that 'lines' controls the number of lines returned or that 'container' expects an ID/name.
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 ('Tail') and resource ('logs of a container'), making its operation clear and distinguishable from sibling Docker tools like docker_inspect or docker_ps. The 'container' in the description aligns with the required parameter, leaving no doubt about the target resource.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vercel_logs, journal_query, or job_output. The description merely restates the action without prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.