Retrieve logs from a running Stellar network container to debug issues or inspect activity. Specify a container name or Docker host override as needed.
Get logs from a running network container
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Container to get logs from (default: local) | |
| dockerHost | No | Override the default docker host path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'running' container, implying a precondition, but doesn't disclose whether logs are streamed, tailed, or a one-shot snapshot, whether output is paginated, or what happens on a stopped/absent container.
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 with no filler. Every word earns its place and the resource/verb lead the phrase.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more weight. For a log tool, the agent would benefit from knowing the return shape (e.g., log lines, streaming vs snapshot) and error behavior, none of which is provided.
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 (name with a local default, dockerHost override) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb (get) and resource (logs from a network container), making the operation immediately clear. It implicitly differentiates from the container lifecycle siblings (stellar_container_start/stop) by scoping to log retrieval, though it doesn't name those siblings 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 only implied — an agent would use it to inspect a container's logs — and the qualifier 'running' hints at a precondition (container must be up). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about what to do if no container is running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.