Runs a read-only logrotate dry run to show which logs would rotate, optionally for a specified config path. Use it to inspect rotation status before making changes.
Read-only SysKnife action GetLogrotateStatus. dry-run logrotate to show what would rotate (logrotate -d) — param: config (optional path); read-only
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds the key non-obvious trait: the tool actually invokes logrotate in debug mode, so it is a simulation that makes no changes. That is real context beyond the annotations; only the required privileges and output shape are unstated.
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 front-loads the read-only guarantee and the dry-run behavior. Slightly dense with backticks and dashes, but nothing is wasted.
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-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the optional parameter. Missing only privilege requirements and rough output expectations, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
The schema declares no properties, yet the description supplies the one meaningful input — an optional `config` path — which the structured schema does not carry. It could have said what happens when config is omitted (default logrotate config), but it adds genuine value over an empty 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?
Names the specific action (GetLogrotateStatus) and explains it concretely as a dry-run of logrotate (-d) that shows what would rotate. Verbs and resource are unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from status siblings like sysknife_get_service_status or sysknife_ufw_status.
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 read-only framing implies a diagnostic/inspection use case, but it never states when to pick this over alternatives (e.g., journal logs) or any prerequisites such as needing logrotate installed or root. Usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.