Fetch logs from a Kubernetes pod container with optional tail line limit to troubleshoot application issues and inspect runtime behavior.
Fetch logs from a pod container with optional tail line limit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pod name | |
| container | No | Container name (optional for multi-container pods) | |
| namespace | No | Namespace (default: "default") | |
| tail_lines | No | Lines from end to return (default: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and mentions tailing, but says nothing about whether logs are current-only or previous-container logs, streaming behavior, permissions, or error conditions.
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 wasted words. The core action and optional limit are immediately clear.
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?
The input schema is fully documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain log-fetching behavior and when this tool is preferred over pod-description siblings.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the idea of a tail line limit, which is already covered by the schema's tail_lines parameter.
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 and resource ('Fetch logs from a pod container') and mentions the optional tail limit. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as describe_pod or list_pods.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like describe_pod for pod state versus logs. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Fetch'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.