Read job logs by tailing lines, selecting a line range, or grepping with context to inspect output, diagnose failures, and trace execution.
Read a job log: tail (default 200 lines), a line range (fromLine/lines), or grep (regex with context lines).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| grep | No | ||
| tail | No | ||
| lines | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| fromLine | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default tail size (200 lines), which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination behavior or log growth considerations, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and packs three modes efficiently. It is not overly verbose, though the parenthetical grammar slightly obscures the mode-to-parameter mapping.
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 six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main read modes but leaves id, context, and mode-interaction semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent invoking it 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%, so the schema documents none of the six parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining tail default, fromLine/lines range semantics, and grep with context lines, but the meaning of id, the interaction between modes, and the context parameter remain undocumented.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Read a job log.' It then enumerates the three access modes (tail, line range, grep), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like job_status or process_output. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
The three modes imply when each is useful (default tail, explicit line range, regex grep), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as process_output or read_file, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.