retrieveVipAuditsListList history about your VIPs (audit) - List and filters the history about your VIPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| vipId | 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.
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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only that the tool 'filters' history but provides no details on pagination, default sorting, date range behavior, or response format. This minimal extra context is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.
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 redundant, repeating the same information twice: 'List history about your VIPs (audit)' and 'List and filters the history about your VIPs.' It wastes words without adding detail.
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 no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential information about required headers, pagination parameters, and expected response, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.
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. While parameter names like vipId and startDate give some hints, the description does not clarify required request ID, filter semantics, or ordering format, leaving agents to guess.
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 history about VIPs, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other audit list tools such as retrieveVipAuditsList or sibling audit tools, though 'VIPs' and 'audit' narrow the scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. The description only restates the purpose without adding usage context or exclusions.
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.