Fetch up to 100 matching OpenStack incident logs by instance and request ID, with optional query and level filters, for read-only troubleshooting that never exposes evaluation labels.
Read at most 100 matching logs. This tool never exposes evaluation labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| levels | No | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| instance_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden, but it does add two real behavioral facts: reads are bounded to 100 results, and evaluation labels are never exposed (a useful data-disclosure guarantee). It omits ordering, pagination/truncation behavior, error behavior, and permission requirements, so it is only partially transparent.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint and the data-exposure guarantee are each stated once. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.
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, so return shape need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves filtering semantics, required-identifier usage, and sibling routing entirely unspecified.
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% across 5 parameters. The description only obliquely touches the limit parameter by implying a ceiling of 100 (schema default 30), and says nothing about query, levels, request_id, or instance_id semantics. This does not compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 the verb and resource ("Read ... matching logs") and a hard cap of 100, so the basic action is clear. However, it never says what the logs are matched against, nor does it distinguish this from siblings like get_timeline or search_runbooks that an agent could plausibly reach for instead.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when search_logs is preferred over get_timeline, get_instance_summary, or search_runbooks, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring an instance_id and request_id. The agent must infer routing purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.