Fetch logs from a specific Docker container by ID. Optionally restrict to the last N lines for troubleshooting or output monitoring.
Fetch logs from a specific Docker container. Requires the container ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tail | No | Limit to last N lines (optional) | |
| containerId | Yes | The Docker container ID or name |
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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. 'Fetch logs' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm that there are no side effects, what the output format is, or how errors like missing containers are handled. The burden is not fully met.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately. It is concise, though the 'Requires the container ID' clause adds little beyond the schema's required field.
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 two-parameter tool, the combination of description and schema is sufficient to make a call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could usefully mention the expected return payload, log format, or behavior for invalid container IDs to be fully complete.
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 input schema already documents both containerId and tail. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the container ID is required, which is already explicit in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch logs from a specific Docker container'), making the primary action clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling pier_get_logs by explicitly targeting container-level logs, though it does not name that alternative.
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 'specific Docker container' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'Requires the container ID' gives the key prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over pier_get_logs or how it relates to the other pier_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.