Retrieve redacted run logs from a specific crawl run using a sequence cursor. Paginate through log entries with optional after and limit parameters to monitor execution progress.
Read redacted run logs using an exclusive sequence cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, that logs are redacted, and that pagination uses an exclusive sequence cursor. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention permissions or performance implications.
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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every phrase adds meaningful information.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and only three parameters, so the description plus schema is partially sufficient. However, it omits sibling differentiation and does not clearly map the cursor phrase to the 'after' parameter. More context would make it fully complete.
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 for the three parameters. It indirectly hints at the cursor via 'exclusive sequence cursor', which relates to 'after', but it never explicitly explains run_id, after, or limit. This leaves too much inference to the agent.
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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('run logs'), and key properties ('redacted', 'exclusive sequence cursor'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like artifacts, preview, or export, which likely handle different content types.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'read logs', but the description does not help an agent choose between logs, artifacts, preview, result, or export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.