View console logs, exceptions, and toast warnings from the Entry app to debug projects and identify runtime errors.
엔트리 앱의 콘솔 로그/예외/토스트 경고 메시지를 봅니다(디버깅용).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "entry_logs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| errors_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only view but never mentions that the 'clear' parameter can destroy log state, nor does it state persistence, retention, rate limits, or whether logs are per-run. A destructive side effect goes entirely undisclosed.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource list front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting the parameters rather than condensing them.
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 debugging tool with no output schema and a state-destroying 'clear' flag, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether calling it is safe alongside the 'clear' option or how to narrow results, which are exactly the decisions the description should support.
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% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. The meanings of 'errors_only' (filter to exceptions only?) and especially 'clear' (truncate the log buffer?) are left entirely unexplained by both the schema and the description.
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 concrete verb and resource set — viewing console logs, exceptions, and toast warnings from the Entry app — which lets an agent distinguish this diagnostic tool from siblings such as entry_run or entry_eval_js. It is clear about what is returned, though it never frames this as a diagnostic counterpart to those execution tools.
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 parenthetical '(for debugging)' implies the usage context, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the tool to call after running or evaluating code to inspect output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.