cron_tail_job_logsRetrieve a job's last retained stdout/stderr lines and use a cursor to poll for newly appended log output, enabling incremental monitoring of running cron jobs.
Last retained stdout/stderr lines of a job, with a cursor to poll for newly appended lines (the poll form of the live log stream).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tail | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral facts that only 'retained' lines are returned (bounded retention) and that a cursor enables incremental polling. It does not disclose cursor expiry behavior, default tail size, or whether a stale cursor errors.
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 with no filler; the cursor/polling behavior, the most decision-relevant detail, is carried in the trailing clause rather than buried.
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 does reasonably well by stating that stdout/stderr lines plus a cursor are returned. However, for a polling tool an agent still needs to know the tail default, retention window, and cursor-expiry semantics, none of which appear.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains `cursor` functionally (poll for newly appended lines) but says nothing about `tail` (default count, max) or `name` (job identifier/format), leaving two of three parameters 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('last retained stdout/stderr lines of a job') and frames it as 'the poll form of the live log stream', which distinguishes it from a streaming counterpart. It does not reference any actual sibling tool by name, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than concrete.
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 phrase 'with a `cursor` to poll for newly appended lines' implies the intended usage pattern (repeated polling), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many cron_* siblings. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.