dpanel_compose_logRetrieve Docker Compose project logs by project ID to troubleshoot deployments, with options to limit lines or download full log text.
Compose 项目日志。line_total ∈ 50|100|200|500|1000|5000|-1。download=true 返回全量文本。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| download | No | ||
| line_total | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the accepted line_total values and that download=true returns the full text (implying it supersedes line_total). It omits auth requirements, pagination/tailing semantics, and error behavior for an unknown id.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the constraint list and the download flag are front-loaded. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the line_total set could read more clearly as an enumeration.
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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the two non-obvious parameters. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the required id, permission requirements, and the relationship to sibling log tools remain unaddressed.
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% across three params, so the description must compensate. It documents line_total's enum-like set (50|100|200|500|1000|5000|-1) and download's effect, but leaves the required id param entirely unexplained and does not say whether -1 means unlimited.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: retrieving logs for a Compose project. It is distinguishable from dpanel_compose_list and dpanel_compose_task by the log resource, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling dpanel_log_list or dpanel_cron_log_list, which likely serve overlapping logging needs.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the Compose-scoped log reader and guess how it differs from dpanel_log_list; nothing states the condition that selects this tool over that one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.