Skip to main content
Glama

Audit log export

audit_log_export
Read-onlyIdempotent

The workspace's own audit log for a window of days: every recorded action with its time (UTC), action name, actor, the team it acted in, target, run, the model that served its model calls (several joined by +, unknown when that cannot be shown, never the planned model) and details, each an id, a count, a code or a time, in ledger order, including sign ins, single sign on provisioning and role changes, and member removals. Takes from and to as YYYY-MM-DD, both days included, at most 3653 days. Needs an API key a workspace administrator issued with the audit scope; any other key answers forbidden. The export itself is recorded in the audit log. Large windows are cut at the output cap, so ask for shorter windows.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "audit_log_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesLast day, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC), included.
fromYesFirst day, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the authorization requirement and the exact failure mode ("any other key answers forbidden"), that the export is itself audited, the 3653-day ceiling, and truncation at the output cap. It also explains the model field's '+'-joined and "unknown" semantics, which no structured field conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded correctly and free of filler, but the entire definition is one sprawling run-on sentence with a long comma-and enumeration of column semantics that is hard to parse. Splitting auth, limits, and return shape into separate sentences would cost nothing and gain a lot.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned ledger rows and their ordering, and it covers auth, date semantics, and truncation. The main residual gap is what "ask for shorter windows" means operationally (no page/offset mechanism described).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: both boundary days are inclusive and interpreted in UTC, and there is a maximum span of 3653 days — a constraint absent from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: "The workspace's own audit log for a window of days," and then enumerates the recorded fields (time, action, actor, team, target, run, model, details). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like alert_events or company_events, which cover different event sources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real operating guidance: the key must be an admin-issued key with the audit scope or the call returns forbidden, and large windows are cut at the output cap so shorter windows should be requested. It does not name an alternative tool for narrower needs, but the when/when-not conditions are concrete enough to act on.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources