Retrieve application logs with optional pagination, filtering, and search parameters to troubleshoot issues or monitor activity.
Returns logs.
GET /api/v1/settings/logs
Args: take: Query parameter. skip: Query parameter. filter: Query parameter. search: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| search | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that—it doesn't disclose sorting, default pagination limits, or whether results are chronological. Since annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint path, but the parameter listing adds no semantic value and is essentially a repeat of the schema. It's not verbose, but it could be more informative in the same length.
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?
Given the four parameters with zero documentation and no output schema details, this description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. Not explaining the meaning of 'filter' or the limit/offset behavior leaves room for misconfiguration. The read-only nature is clear from annotations, but the functional semantics are missing.
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%, meaning the schema only provides names and types (all nullable with defaults). The description merely repeats the parameter names as query parameters without explaining 'take' as limit, 'skip' as offset, 'filter' as query syntax, or 'search' as keyword. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Returns logs' is extremely vague—it does not specify what logs (e.g., application logs, audit logs) or for what resource (settings). It is not a tautology, but it provides minimal information and fails to distinguish from other list_* tools. The endpoint path is given but adds no clarity for an agent.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists query parameters but doesn't explain their purpose or how to filter logs effectively. No mention of context such as 'when troubleshooting settings changes' or 'for recent errors'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.