Tail Docker container logs by name, with an optional line count, to inspect runtime output and diagnose container issues.
Tail logs for a Docker container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tail | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Tail logs' implies a read-only operation, but it does not say whether it streams continuously or returns a one-shot snapshot, what happens if the container is stopped or missing, or whether authentication/permissions are required. Significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity contributes to the informational gaps noted elsewhere.
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 values need not be explained, but the description leaves both parameters undocumented and the streaming-vs-snapshot behavior unclear for a tool with no annotations. For a two-parameter operational tool this is under-specified.
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%: neither 'name' nor 'tail' is documented. The description only loosely implies that 'name' is the container and 'tail' relates to log lines; it never clarifies that name accepts a container name/ID or that tail is a line count with a default of 80.
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 specific verb ('tail') and resource ('logs for a Docker container'), which is enough to separate it from docker_ps (which lists containers). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action/resource pair is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus docker_ps or any other diagnostic tool, no prerequisites (e.g. container must be running), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.