Tail OpenDeck's or a plugin's log to inspect recent events after applying changes, with tokens redacted and optional grep filtering.
Tail OpenDeck's log or a plugin's log (tokens redacted). Useful after apply_changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grep | No | Only lines matching this regex. | |
| lines | No | ||
| plugin | No | Plugin name/id, or omit for OpenDeck's own log. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note beyond that: 'tokens redacted', which tells the agent output is sanitized. It doesn't mention truncation behavior of the 'lines' tail, but the redaction disclosure earns credit.
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 compact sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the usage hint trailing. Every element earns its place, though the usage hint is terse enough to be marginally under-specified rather than wasteful.
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 values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the two log sources and the redaction behavior; the only minor gap is no mention of what a tail/filter operation returns or how 'lines' bounds output.
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 coverage is 67% – the 'grep' and 'plugin' params are documented in the schema, while 'lines' is not. The description reinforces the plugin-omission semantics ('OpenDeck's log or a plugin's log'), matching the schema's plugin description, but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.
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 ('Tail') and resource ('OpenDeck's log or a plugin's log'), and explicitly covers both log sources, which an agent can distinguish from other read tools. It does not differentiate from siblings beyond naming the log resource, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'Useful after apply_changes' implies a usage context, effectively pointing to the apply/verify workflow. However, it offers no explicit alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no guidance on choosing between OpenDeck's log and a plugin's log beyond the schema default.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.