Retrieve a paginated page of a messaging channel's activity log, filtered by level, action, and page size for auditing and troubleshooting.
A page of a channel’s activity log (POST /api/kalagh/logs/list · gRPC GetLogs · socket "logs/list")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| level | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| channelId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are paginated ('a page of'), which matters for retrieval loops. It says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, or rate limits.
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 line with no wasted words; the transport endpoints in parentheses are compact and skimmable. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity one.
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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries the full burden for both inputs and returns, and it discharges almost none of it. It does not explain what a log entry contains or what the numeric 'level' and 'action' filters do, which are the core things an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 5 parameters, and the description names none of them. Filters like 'level' and 'action' and the paging controls 'page'/'pageSize' have no explanation anywhere, so an agent cannot know their semantics, allowed values, or defaults from this definition.
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?
The description identifies the resource and scope ('a channel's activity log') and implies pagination ('a page of'), but it is phrased as a noun fragment describing the return value rather than stating the operation. The verb is only inferable from the tool name 'logs_list', and no sibling (e.g. logs_webhooks) is differentiated.
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 such as logs_webhooks. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for reading channel activity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.