Read and filter job-hunting organizer log files by tail count, minimum level, or JSON format. Retrieve specific log entries to debug or monitor campaign activity.
Read the log file with optional filtering (tail, level, JSON format)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | No | Output raw JSON lines instead of pretty-printing | |
| tail | No | Show only the last N lines | |
| level | No | Filter by minimum level |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose important traits such as what happens when no filters are supplied, whether reading the entire log could be large or slow, where the log file comes from, or whether permissions are required.
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. It states the action, resource, and optional filters immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify default behavior and output format more explicitly, especially since omitting tail may return the entire log.
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 the schema already documents tail, level, and json fully. The description lists the parameter names and adds a small amount of context, but it misleadingly groups JSON format under 'filtering' and does not add syntax or default-value details beyond the 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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Read the log file'. It also names the supported filters, so an agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby read_* siblings such as read_config or read_retro beyond the resource 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?
Usage is implied by 'Read the log file with optional filtering', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about when another sibling might be preferred. The optional filters provide some context but not real selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.