tail_eventsRead ordered connector events since a given sequence to track capacity changes such as near, reached, and cleared. Pass the previous next value as since to page forward.
Ordered events for the whole connector, including capacity.near, capacity.reached, and capacity.cleared. Pass next back as since.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Return events after this seq. Pass the previous next, or omit to read from the start. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering, event categories, and the cursor handoff, but says nothing about whether the call blocks/streams, how many events are returned per call, or what an empty result means — meaningful gaps for a 'tail' style tool.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination instruction second. Every clause earns its place.
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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape more than it does — it names a few event types and implies a 'next' cursor but not the batch size or whether other event types appear. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tailing tool.
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% and the schema already says 'Pass the previous next, or omit to read from the start', so the description's cursor note largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 applies; no extra semantics such as bounds or batch-size interaction are added.
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 resource and scope: ordered events for the whole connector, and names concrete event types (capacity.near, capacity.reached, capacity.cleared). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tail_lines or tail_transcript, though 'whole connector' implies broader scope than those.
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?
'Pass next back as since' gives concrete continuation guidance for pagination, which is useful. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus tail_lines/tail_transcript, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.