retrieveDomainsAuditsListList history about your Domains (audit) - List and filters the history about your Domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| changedBy | No | ||
| requestId | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of required x-request-id header, pagination behavior, or filtering constraints. It merely restates the title, providing no value beyond the 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 short, but it is repetitive: 'List history about your Domains (audit)' is repeated almost verbatim in the second clause 'List and filters the history about your Domains.' The only new information is the vague word 'filters,' which does not justify the redundancy. Structure could be improved with a single, information-dense sentence.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the required x-request-id, the meaning of query parameters, the response format, or how this tool fits with other audit tools. The agent cannot meaningfully select or invoke this tool based on the current description.
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% with 10 parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only says 'filters' without detailing any of the parameters (page, size, domain, changedBy, etc.). This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to construct a valid request.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'history about your Domains (audit)', making the tool's basic purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling audit-list tools like retrieveHandlesAuditsList or retrieveInstancesAuditsList, which share the same pattern.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other audit-list tools. It merely says 'List and filters' without specifying any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.