Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

Read app logs

get_app_logs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read recent log lines from the live version of a function app. An app that serves files has no process and answers that it has no logs. Function logs are not captured yet either, and the answer says so: until they are, have the function catch its own errors and return them in the response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many rows to return. Defaults to 50.
sinceNoRFC 3339 timestamp to read from.
app_idYesThe app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses real behavioral edge cases: file-serving apps respond that they have no logs, and function logs are not captured. This gives the agent honest expectations about the response and helps avoid confusion.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action first, followed by necessary caveats. Every sentence earns its place by preventing incorrect expectations, and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema is complete, and the annotations cover safety. The description adds the remaining edge-case context about file-serving apps and functions, and its wording 'read log lines' and 'answers it has no logs' sufficiently conveys the response behavior even though there is no output schema.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with full coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds only the general framing of 'recent log lines' rather than parameter-specific semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read recent log lines from the live version of a function app.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope, distinguishing it from file/version/share tools among the siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when the tool applies (live function app) and when it does not: file-serving apps have no process and no logs, and function logs are not captured yet. It even suggests a workaround for functions, so an agent gets actionable when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All reachpad-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.

Resources