get_pod_logsRetrieve Kubernetes pod logs from a specified namespace by providing the pod name, with optional filters for container, tail lines, and previous logs to support debugging.
Get logs from a pod in a specified namespace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pod_name | Yes | ||
| previous | No | ||
| container | No | ||
| namespace | Yes | ||
| tail_lines | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail that it fetches pod logs in a namespace, but does not disclose return format, tailing behavior, or handling of missing pods. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It wastes no words and immediately communicates the core action.
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?
With five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It lacks optional-parameter semantics, usage context, and any distinction from sibling log-related tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'pod' and 'namespace.' The optional parameters 'previous,' 'container,' and 'tail_lines' remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get logs from a pod in a specified namespace.' It correctly describes what the tool operates on, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'get_logs' tool, so an agent cannot tell exactly when to choose this one versus that one without opening schemas.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_logs' or 'get_events.' It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would make it the correct choice, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.