retrieveObjectStorageAuditsListList history about your object storages (audit) - List and filters the history about your object storages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| changedBy | No | ||
| requestId | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| objectStorageId | No |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic 'List and filters', failing to mention pagination, return format, or that this is a read-only audit operation. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them with useful behavioral details.
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 extremely short but redundant: it repeats the title almost verbatim and adds only the vague phrase 'List and filters'. While brevity is valuable, this text does not earn its place because it adds no new information beyond the title. It is under-specified rather than concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the difference between this and other audit list tools, nor does it mention available filters (e.g., date range, changedBy, objectStorageId). The description lacks essential context for correct invocation, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.
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 provides no parameter semantics. With 10 parameters including page, size, orderBy, startDate, endDate, changedBy, etc., the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.
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 tool lists audit history for object storages. It uses specific verbs ('List', 'filters') and identifies the resource ('object storages'), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools for other resources. However, it lacks details about specific filtering options or scope, making it slightly less clear than a fully specified description.
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 alternatives. It does not mention related tools like retrieveObjectStorageList or other audit tools, nor does it describe conditions where this tool is preferred. The only implicit hint is the word 'audit', which suggests historical context, but this is not explicit guidance.
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.