get_log_by_deviceRetrieve router system log entries filtered by a device's MAC address, IP address, or name to troubleshoot connectivity issues for that specific client.
Get system log entries filtered by device MAC address, IP address or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | Number of lines (default 50) | |
| device | Yes | MAC address, IP address or device name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering dimensions but says nothing about the default line count, output format, or behavior when the device is unknown, leaving gaps the annotations don't fill.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information relevant to selecting the 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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is essentially complete. It could go one step further by clarifying how it differs from the generic get_log, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of MAC/IP/name merely restates the 'device' parameter, and the 'lines' parameter is not addressed, so no meaning is added beyond structured data.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get system log entries') plus the filtering scope ('by device MAC address, IP address or name'). The 'by device' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_log, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: reach for this when you need log entries scoped to one device rather than the whole system. No explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like get_log or get_extender_log to disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.