omv-mcp

by vnaveenb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

service_logs

Retrieve recent systemd journal entries for a service unit. Specify the unit name and line count to inspect logs.

Instructions

Last lines journal entries for a systemd unit (journalctl -u).

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": {
      "unit": "<unit>"
    },
    "name": "service_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit`	Yes
`lines`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It accurately communicates a read-only operation (journalctl -u), but doesn't disclose potential edge cases like permissions required or behavior for nonexistent units.

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 sentence, immediately states the primary resource (journal entries for a systemd unit), and includes the equivalent command. No redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only log retrieval with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. It doesn't mention the return format, but the output schema handles that, and the `journalctl -u` reference gives familiarity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that `unit` is the systemd unit and `lines` controls the number of entries returned. However, it doesn't detail the expected format of `unit` (e.g., with or without `.service`).

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 clearly specifies the tool retrieves the last journal entries for a systemd unit, using the `journalctl -u` equivalent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `container_logs` (which target containers) and `service_status` (which reports status, not 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 implies usage for retrieving recent logs from systemd-managed services. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the systemd unit focus differentiates it from container-related log tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which is a minor gap.

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