Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rlg-mcp

rlg-mcp

by sebastienrousseau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Tail rlg log file

tail_log
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the most recent parseable records from an rlg log file, newest last, to quickly review recent log activity.

Instructions

Return the last N parseable rlg (RustLogs) records from a log file, newest last. Use this to glance at the most recent activity in a log; use filter_log when you need to select records by level or component, and summarize_errors for an aggregated error count.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "tail_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nNoHow many of the most recent parseable records to return (default 100).
pathYesFilesystem path to an rlg log file (Logfmt/JSON records, one per line).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns only parseable records and newest-last ordering, which are behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and behavior; second sentence provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tail tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output ordering, file format (rlg, parseable), and usage context including siblings. No gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about log format (rlg) and ordering ('newest last'), which enriches understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 the last N parseable rlg records from a log file, newest last. It distinguishes from siblings (filter_log, summarize_errors) by naming them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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 (glance at recent activity) and when to use alternatives (filter_log for level/component selection, summarize_errors for aggregated count).

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