vercel_logsRetrieve build and runtime event logs for a specified deployment, with an optional limit on the number of events to return.
Build/runtime event tail for a deployment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| deployment | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some behavioral context by indicating 'tail' semantics and that it covers build/runtime events, but it does not disclose details like output format, streaming behavior, or potential errors.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly under-specified in clarity.
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 an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter clarification. It gives just enough to understand the core function, not enough for confident invocation in edge cases.
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%, but the description does not compensate by explaining the deployment identifier format or the meaning of the limit parameter. It only indirectly implies that 'deployment' identifies the target deployment.
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 resource (a deployment) and action (tail build/runtime events), which clearly communicates the tool's purpose as deployment log retrieval. It is distinguishable from siblings like vercel_deployments or vercel_redeploy, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vercel_inspect or vercel_deployments. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions where this tool is or is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.