listmonk_logsRetrieve recent Listmonk application log lines from an in-memory ring buffer to inspect runtime events and troubleshoot issues; entries are not persisted.
Recent Listmonk application log lines (ring buffer, not persisted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with 'ring buffer, not persisted,' warning that results are ephemeral and bounded, but it omits how many lines are returned, ordering, or truncation behavior.
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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the ephemerality caveat is packed into the same clause rather than buried later.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source for return shape, yet it gives no sense of volume, ordering, or line format. For a zero-arg tool this is acceptable but leaves the agent guessing what it will actually receive.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.
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 the specific resource returned — recent Listmonk application log lines — and adds a key qualifier about the ring buffer. It does not name a sibling it differs from (e.g., listmonk_status), but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can distinguish it from status/counts 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus listmonk_status or dashboard_counts for diagnostics. The 'not persisted' note implies a debugging/troubleshooting context, but that must be inferred rather than read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.