retrieveImageAuditsListList history about your DNS Zones (audit) - List and filters the history about your DNS Zones .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail, such as whether pagination or date filtering is supported or how results are ordered. It simply restates the title.
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 short sentence, but it is entirely redundant with the title and contains a filler phrase 'List and filters the history'. It lacks structure and front-loads no additional insight.
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?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely thin. It does not clarify what the audit history contains, what each filter does, or how this tool differs from other audit-list tools like retrieveDomainsAuditsList. Given the apparent name/description mismatch, agents cannot reliably decide when to invoke it.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. Terms like 'changedBy', 'startDate', and 'orderBy' hint at filtering, but the description offers no information about their syntax, combined behavior, or the required x-request-id format beyond the schema pattern.
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 says 'List history about your DNS Zones (audit)' which is a clear action and resource, but the tool name is 'retrieveImageAuditsList', suggesting it should return image audit history. This mismatch makes the stated purpose unreliable and likely a copy-paste error. It also fails to distinguish which resource's audits are returned.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many other retrieve*AuditsList sibling tools. It does not explain any prerequisites, context, or alternative scenarios.
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.