CyberHawk Veeam MCP

Get session log records

get_session_logs

Retrieve detailed step-by-step logs for a backup session to diagnose failures, warnings, and errors such as VDDK errors, snapshot failures, or network timeouts.

Instructions

Return the detailed log records for a session — the individual steps and their status. This is the primary source for understanding WHY a run failed or warned (VDDK errors, snapshot failures, network timeouts, repository full, etc.).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_session_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes	Session ID (GUID) from list_sessions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output includes detailed log records, individual steps, status, and example error types, giving a good sense of what to expect. It does not mention safety (read-only), but the content implies it is diagnostic and non-destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description sufficiently explains the output nature (detailed logs, steps, status, error examples) and usage context for a simple 1-parameter tool. It lacks explicit return format details, but the examples compensate for the lack of output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter sessionId. The parameter description in schema is adequate. The tool description adds value by noting the session ID comes from list_sessions, a useful hint for agents, raising it above the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns detailed log records for a session, including individual steps and status. It distinguishes itself as the primary source for understanding failures, differentiating from sibling tools like get_session which likely provide summary info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: to understand why a run failed or warned, with concrete examples of error types. It implies that for session-level summary, one should use get_session, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.