Retrieve logs for a specific task attempt using its task name and attempt ID to troubleshoot workflow execution.
Retrieve logs for a specific task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum bytes to return (default: 1MB) | |
| offset | No | Byte offset for pagination | |
| task_name | Yes | Full task name (e.g., "+main+extract_data") | |
| attempt_id | Yes | Attempt ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says "retrieve." It does not disclose read-only semantics, whether logs are complete or capped (the limit parameter hints at truncation but the description never says so), whether logs expire, or what the response shape looks like.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is underspecified rather than concise — the same length could have carried a scoping note or an alternative-tool pointer without bloat.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context for a four-parameter, task-scoped log retrieval tool, and it supplies none. Pagination semantics, truncation behavior, and the relationship between attempt_id and task_name are all left unaddressed.
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 all four parameters (limit, offset, task_name, attempt_id) are already documented with formats and examples in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline; a 3 is the appropriate ceiling here.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve logs for a specific task"), so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_attempt_tasks or get_session_attempts, which also take attempt/task identifiers, leaving ambiguity about which tool surfaces logs versus task metadata.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling attempt/task tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a task must exist within an attempt, or that logs may be truncated or expired). The agent must infer the calling conditions entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.