citeste_jurnalRead the latest CMS journal entries with actor, timestamp, origin, command, and result, and verify the chain integrity for tamper detection.
Ultimele intrări din jurnal (cine, când, de unde, ce comandă, ce rezultat) și verificarea lanțului: "intact" = niciun rând modificat sau scos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ultimele | No | ||
| doar_probleme | No | doar încercări eșuate, refuzuri, erori, blocări |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that it returns the latest journal entries and performs a chain verification, with 'intact' meaning no row was modified or removed. This goes beyond the annotation hints.
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 states the core function and then the expected output detail. There is no filler or redundancy; every part of the description 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 no output schema, the description properly explains the response shape (entry fields and chain status), which is sufficient for a read-only tool with two optional parameters. It does not state default limits or sorting, but those are covered by the parameter schema and defaults.
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?
The schema documents both parameters, with a description for 'doar_probleme' and types/defaults for both. The description says 'ultimele intrări' which aligns with the 'ultimele' parameter, but it does not explicitly map parameters or mention the 'doar_probleme' filter. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter explanation.
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 names a specific resource (jurnal) and a specific verb (citește), and also lists what the entries contain and the chain verification result. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'citeste' and 'cauta', which target other resources.
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 tool's purpose is implied by the resource name and description, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'citeste' or 'listeaza'. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are provided, so the agent must infer the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.