retrieveRecordAuditsListList history about your DNS Records (audit) - List and filter the history of changes made to your DNS Records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| recordId | No | ||
| changedBy | No | ||
| requestId | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the ability to 'filter' the history, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, required request ID, or response shape. With annotations present, this is acceptable but minimal.
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 repetitive—'List history about your DNS Records (audit)' is essentially restated as 'List and filter the history of changes made to your DNS Records.' The second sentence adds only the word 'filter' and could be merged into a single, tighter 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 many sibling audit tools, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the returned audit data contains, how to use the filter parameters, or how this differs from other audit list tools. The description is too vague for a tool of this complexity.
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 fails to compensate. It only mentions 'filter' in general terms without explaining any of the 10 parameters (e.g., startDate, recordId, changedBy) or their meanings. The description adds virtually no value to the parameter list.
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 and filters the history of changes to DNS Records, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS Records audit'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retrieveDnsZoneRecordsList by explicitly focusing on audit history rather than current records.
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 gives clear context—this is for viewing the audit/history of DNS record changes. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the '(audit)' designation in the title and description makes the intended use case obvious, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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.