mcp-ssh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tail_log

View the last N lines of a remote log file over SSH. Specify the file path and line count to quickly inspect recent entries.

Instructions

Tail the end of a remote log file.

Args: path: Absolute path to the log file (e.g., "/var/log/nginx/error.log"). lines: Number of lines to retrieve from the end (default 50). host_name: Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.

Returns: Last N lines of the log file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "tail_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`lines`	No
`host_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Tail' and 'Returns', and clarifies behavior with default lines and host selection, but does not mention potential side effects or permissions (though none are expected).

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 structured with a clear one-liner summary, Args, and Returns, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tail tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, behavior, and return value; it is self-contained and contextually sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly documents all three parameters: path with an example, lines with a default, and host_name with a fallback explanation, adding meaning 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 states a specific verb ('Tail') and resource ('remote log file'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like read_file or grep_file by focusing on the end of the file.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for reading the last N lines of a remote log file, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like read_file or get_system_logs, or state when not to use it.

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