This is a duplicate of the actual entry deprecating this in favor of the original.
get_audit_eventRead one audit event by id with its full data.
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": {
"event_id": "<event_id>"
},
"name": "get_audit_event"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The audit event's id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the full event data is returned rather than a summary, but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or access restrictions.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to call it correctly. Only the 'full data' return hint compensates for the missing output schema, which is adequate but not generous.
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 100% with a single required parameter already documented as 'The audit event's id.' The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one audit event by id'), and the word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_audit_events. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals the prerequisite of already holding an event id, and the list tool is left as the assumed path for discovery. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.