Read recent captured stdout/stderr from a process started by this MCP server to check build errors, logs, or dev server output without pasting into chat.
Read recent captured stdout/stderr for a process started by this MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. | |
| tailChars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'recent captured' stdout/stderr, implying a buffered tail rather than a live stream, but it never mentions truncation, buffer limits, or whether output can be lost before reading.
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 and the scoping constraint stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the other dimensions have gaps.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description bears some burden of describing what is returned, which it only gestures at with 'stdout/stderr.' For a 3-parameter tool with a nested agent object and a 200k-char tail limit, the definition is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 only 33%: only the nested 'agent' object is documented in the schema, while 'id' and 'tailChars' carry no explanation. The phrase 'recent captured' faintly signals that tailChars bounds the returned window, but the description supplies no meaning for id or the agent binding.
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 (Read) and resource (recent captured stdout/stderr) and scopes it to 'a process started by this MCP server.' An agent can separate it from process_list, process_start, and process_kill, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a process started by this MCP server,' which suggests pairing with process_start. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or direction toward process_list for enumerating processes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.