Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nomad-mcp

nomad-mcp

by udaisingh93
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_allocation_logs

Retrieve recent stdout or stderr logs from a specified task in a Nomad allocation to troubleshoot issues without direct access.

Instructions

Fetch recent stdout/stderr log output for a task in an allocation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "allocId": "<allocId>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "get_allocation_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesTask name within the allocation
typeNostdout
allocIdYes
tailBytesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'recent' and 'stdout/stderr' but doesn't disclose behavioral details like the meaning of 'recent', how much data is returned, whether it's a read-only operation, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, limits, and behavioral nuances. It doesn't explain tailBytes, what 'recent' means, or what the response looks like. For a 4-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'task' is described). The tool description mentions 'stdout/stderr' (matching the type enum) and 'task in an allocation' (matching allocId/task) but doesn't explain tailBytes or the default behavior. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'recent stdout/stderr log output for a task in an allocation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_allocation, which fetches allocation details rather than logs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates the tool's context: fetching logs for a task within an allocation. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the narrow scope makes the use case obvious, and no prerequisites or conflicting tools are implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools