Retrieve all details for a specific log source by ID, including configuration and status, to troubleshoot or verify LogSource settings.
Get details about a specific LogSource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logsource_id | Yes | LogSource ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the purpose, such as response behavior, missing-ID handling, or permission requirements, providing little extra value over the annotations.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a simple single-parameter read tool.
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 simple get-by-ID tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what details are returned or how errors surface, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 100% and the only parameter, logsource_id, is adequately described as 'LogSource ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LogSource'), and 'specific' distinguishes it from plural siblings like get_logsources and get_device_logsources. It lacks an explicit named sibling comparison, but the singular scope makes the purpose clear.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_logsources, get_device_logsources, or export_logsource. The intended use is only implied by the name and singular phrasing; no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.