Retrieve a specific Prowlarr log file's contents by providing its filename. Use this to inspect log data from the server.
Read LogFile.
GET /api/v1/log/file/{filename}
Args: filename: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP method and path structure, which is helpful, but it does not disclose error handling, file content format, or that the file must already exist. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the endpoint and argument in a clear, organized manner with no redundant text. It could be slightly more explanatory, but it is efficient and scannable.
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?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema (not shown) and annotations covering safety, the description lacks essential context for an agent. It does not mention that filenames come from list_log_file or that invalid filenames will cause errors. This missing guidance makes it incomplete for reliable autonomous use.
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 description must compensate. It clarifies that 'filename' is a path parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. However, it does not specify any constraints (e.g., valid extensions, required format) or how to discover valid filenames. Minimal but sufficient for a simple string parameter.
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 'Read LogFile' with an explicit GET endpoint, making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_log_file (which lists files) and get_log_file_update_by_filename (which targets the update log) by the filename parameter, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_log_file or get_log_file_update_by_filename. The description implies you need a filename but does not explain how to obtain one or when this tool is preferred over listing logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.