Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_read_error_log

Read the tail of the MODX error log to diagnose issues, with an optional line limit (default 100).

Instructions

Read the tail of the MODX error log (core/cache/logs/error.log) for diagnostics. Optional limit (lines, default 100).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "modx_read_error_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the load: it does establish that this is a read-only tail of a known file and that the default is 100 lines. It omits behavior an agent would want — what happens if the log is missing or empty, whether there is a cap on limit, and what the returned text looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parameter detail trailing. No wasted wording.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what file, what portion of it, and the default size. Minor gaps remain around limit bounds and absent-file behavior, which are the only things missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it tells the agent that `limit` is measured in lines and defaults to 100, which is more than the bare number schema conveys. It still says nothing about bounds or a maximum value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read the tail of the MODX error log') and even gives the concrete file path (core/cache/logs/error.log), plus the intent ('for diagnostics'). It does not distinguish itself from adjacent log-reading siblings such as modx_read_audit_log, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'For diagnostics' implies the situation in which to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative log sources (e.g., audit log) an agent might confuse it with. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools