get_role_logRetrieve recent log lines for a specific Cloudera service role, including process, stderr, or stdout logs, to inspect activity and diagnose issues.
Últimas linhas do log de uma role. log: 'full' (log do processo), 'stderr' ou 'stdout'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log | No | stderr | |
| role | Yes | ||
| cluster | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| tail_lines | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral detail — that 'full' returns the process log while 'stderr'/'stdout' select the respective stream — but it omits that this is a read-only operation, how many lines are returned by default, and any truncation or availability caveats.
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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the parameter value semantics; there is no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though the sentence fragments make it slightly terse to the point of under-explaining.
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?
Placeholder.
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% and there are no enums in the schema, yet the description supplies the three accepted values for 'log', which is genuinely valuable information absent from the structured data. However, it says nothing about 'tail_lines' (default 200) or what cluster/service/role select, leaving 4 of 5 parameters undocumented in both places.
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 and resource: fetching the last lines of a role's log ('Últimas linhas do log de uma role'), which is distinguishable from sibling tools that list roles, services, or config groups. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, so a 4 rather than 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_role_config_groups for configuration instead of logs), and no prerequisites such as cluster/service/role needing to exist or the caller needing log-read permissions. Usage is only implied by the word 'log'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.