Retrieve update log file contents by specifying its filename. Use this to inspect Prowlarr update logs directly via API.
Read UpdateLogFile.
GET /api/v1/log/file/update/{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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Read' wording is consistent with them. The description adds the target resource and path parameter but no deeper behavioral context such as auth requirements, not-found behavior, or response shape. Since the annotations carry the safety profile, the minimal description is acceptable but adds little beyond that.
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 short and front-loaded: the core 'Read UpdateLogFile' appears first, followed by the endpoint and argument listing. It contains no filler, though the endpoint line partially duplicates information already available in the tool name.
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?
For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the basics are present. What is missing is guidance on when to use this tool versus the related file-log siblings and what valid filename values look like. The agent can likely call it correctly, but must rely on the name and schema for disambiguation.
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 identifies filename as a path parameter and the endpoint template confirms its placement, which is useful. However, it adds no format, examples, or relationship to the filenames returned by list_log_file_update, leaving the agent with only the parameter name and title.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Read UpdateLogFile.' The endpoint template confirms it operates on an update log file keyed by filename. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_log_file_by_filename by the 'update' qualifier, though it never explains what an UpdateLogFile is.
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 about when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_log_file_by_filename or list_log_file_update. The description states only the operation and endpoint, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing. This leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.