Display recent error-level and worse journal entries to speed incident triage across a host or the default host.
Show recent error-and-worse journal entries across the system — a fast triage starting point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | target host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. "Show" implies a non-mutating read and the severity filter and system-wide scope are genuinely useful disclosure, but "recent" is undefined (no time window or entry cap) and the description never says how the optional host default is resolved or whether results are truncated.
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, zero filler, with the resource and its filter front-loaded before the triage framing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
Low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain returns. It is nearly complete, with the only real omissions being the "recent" window and any routing hint toward journal_tail.
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 coverage is 100% and the single host parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about host, though for a one-optional-param tool little more is needed.
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 (Show) plus resource (journal entries) with a server-side filter (error-and-worse) and scope (across the system). This implicitly separates it from journal_tail, but the sibling is never named, so the distinction rests on the reader inferring what journal_tail does.
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?
"A fast triage starting point" hints at the intended use case and gives the agent a reason to reach for this first, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of journal_tail as the alternative for unfiltered/following log inspection. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.