AxioRank: Zero-Trust for AI Agents

Search audit logs

axiorank_search_audit_logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search your workspace's governance audit trail, newest first, with filters: decision (allow/deny/hold), source (sdk/mcp), agentId, tool name (substring), minimum risk, and a time window (ISO from/to). Payloads are already secret-redacted. Use it to answer questions like "show denied tool calls in the last 24h". Requires the logs:read scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	ISO timestamp: exclusive upper bound on created_at.
`from`	No	ISO timestamp: inclusive lower bound on created_at.
`tool`	No	Case-insensitive substring of the tool name.
`limit`	No
`source`	No
`agentId`	No
`minRisk`	No
`decision`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are newest first and payloads are secret-redacted, which are useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concisely structured sentence with clear sections, followed by an example and scope requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, filters, ordering, redaction, and scope. Lacks mention of pagination or return format, but given the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete for a search tool with 8 parameters.

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 description coverage is low (38%). The description explains the purpose of decision, source, agentId, tool (substring), minRisk, and time window parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's type hints.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'audit logs', with specific filters and ordering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are CRUD operations on agents, policies, etc.

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?

Provides a concrete usage example ('show denied tool calls in the last 24h') and notes the required scope. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

All AxioRank: Zero-Trust for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources

Need Help?