Retrieve consolidated AP and device event logs—including reboots, crashes, configuration changes, and upgrades—newest first, with pagination and optional location scoping.
Consolidated AP/device event logs (reboots, crashes, config, upgrades), newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | 0-based record offset | |
| page_size | No | Records per page (max 500) | |
| location_id | No | Scope to a location subtree |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema — results are ordered newest first — and implies a read-only listing operation. It omits any statement about read-only safety, retention window, rate limits, or what happens with out-of-range offsets, which matters for a log-retrieval tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the event categories, and the ordering with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 three-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description says nothing about what a log record contains or how pagination terminates. Given the crowded event-log sibling set, it is thinner than ideal.
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%, with start, page_size, and location_id all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — notably it never mentions that location_id scopes the log to a location subtree, which is the most decision-relevant parameter.
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?
Names a concrete resource (AP/device event logs) and clarifies the content with parenthetical examples (reboots, crashes, config, upgrades), so an agent knows this is an event-retrieval tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like cvcue_query_events or cvcue_event_summary, leaving overlap ambiguous.
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?
The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling event tools (cvcue_query_events, cvcue_event_summary, cvcue_client_events) that an agent would need to choose between. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and content examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.