cardeck

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

logs_fetch

Fetch device logs incrementally after a given sequence number by reading persisted files, so you can inspect all routine lines and cross-process generations during remote debugging.

Instructions

取设备 sinceSeq 之后的日志（增量拉取；读磁盘落盘文件，含全部例行行、跨进程世代）

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": {
      "deviceId": "<deviceId>"
    },
    "name": "logs_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No
`deviceId`	Yes
`sinceSeq`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that logs are read from disk-persisted files, include all routine lines, and span process generations, which is meaningful context beyond the schema. It omits safety/read-only confirmation, pagination or truncation behavior, and rate/limit behavior for the max parameter.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical efficiently packs the incremental pull, disk-file source, routine-line, and cross-process-generation details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks deviceId and max semantics, return ordering or pagination behavior, and sibling differentiation against logs_tail and logs_file.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It clarifies sinceSeq as an incremental starting point and mentions disk files, but it does not explain deviceId or max (including the default 2000 and upper bound 5000). Two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch device logs after sinceSeq, with incremental pull semantics. It also adds mechanism details (reads disk-persisted files, includes all routine lines, cross-process generations). However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as logs_tail or logs_file.

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?

Usage is implied by 'sinceSeq 之后的日志' and '增量拉取', indicating this is for incremental log retrieval after a sequence position. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over logs_tail or logs_file, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Deploy Server