Retrieve learned log templates with sort, order, and pagination controls to inspect clusters and template text.
List learned log templates with sorting and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sort_by | No | cluster_id | |
| descending | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| templates | Yes |
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 that the operation supports sorting and pagination, which are behavioral traits, but does not disclose anything beyond the schema parameters. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes the key capabilities. No filler or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the operation, and the distinguishing capabilities. It could add context about when 'learned' templates are available, but this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
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 provides the high-level phrase 'sorting and pagination.' It does not explain the semantics of limit, offset, sort_by, or descending beyond what their names imply, nor the meanings of enum values like cluster_id and cluster_size.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'learned log templates,' with added scope on sorting and pagination. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_stats or match_logs by name.
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?
The description implies usage—call this tool when you need to retrieve learned log templates—and notes the sorting and pagination capabilities. However, it provides no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over siblings like get_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.