Retrieve Prowlarr log file contents to inspect application logs and troubleshoot issues.
Read LogFile.
GET /api/v1/log/file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and path, but no further behavioral detail such as what is returned or whether it is a list vs. a file read. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. 'Read LogFile' adds little value over the tool name, and only the endpoint line provides concrete information. This is closer to under-specification than effective brevity.
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?
Despite a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description fails to resolve the core ambiguity of whether this tool lists log files or reads one file's contents. Given siblings like get_log_file_by_filename, this missing clarification is essential for correct tool selection, making the description incomplete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.
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 says "Read LogFile," which states a verb and resource but remains vague about what 'read' means here. It does not clarify whether this tool lists available log files or returns file contents, which is needed to distinguish it from siblings like get_log_file_by_filename and list_log.
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 instead of the many related siblings. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative hints, so an agent must infer the intended use from the endpoint and tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.