FortFi Treasury MCP

list_audit_log

Recent account activity: one row per money move (sends, swaps, bridges), blocked attempt, or account change (keys, recipients). Money rows and blocked rows carry a confirmationNumber (FF-XXXX-XXXX) the owner can quote to FortFi support. Blocked rows carry the reasons. Pass view: 'full' for every internal step. Optional walletId filters to one vault's history. Pass cursor (from a previous page's nextCursor, even as an empty string on the first call) to switch the response to { items, nextCursor } and page back through full history instead of only the most recent entries.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`view`	No	activity (default): one row per money move, blocked attempt, or account change. full: every audit step, including internal ones.
`limit`	No	Max entries to return (default 20, max 100)
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor from a previous page's nextCursor. Passing this key (even as '') switches the response to { items, nextCursor }.
`walletId`	No	Filter to audit entries for one wallet id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses row types, confirmation numbers on money and blocked rows, blocked reasons, view modes, and cursor-driven response-shape switching. It does not mention authorization or read-only status explicitly, but the read behavior is strongly implied.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core row model and remains dense with useful detail. It is a single paragraph with semicolon clauses rather than a more scannable structure, but it does not waste many words.

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?

Given four optional parameters, full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the returned row semantics and pagination behavior well enough for correct invocation. Its main missing context is explicit differentiation from list_activity_report.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents view, limit, cursor, and walletId. The description mostly restates those meanings and adds only light context, such as walletId filtering one vault's history and cursor paging into full history, so it remains at the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states that this lists account activity with one row per money move, blocked attempt, or account change, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_activity_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains when to use view='full', walletId filtering, and cursor pagination, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as list_activity_report. Usage is implied through parameter behavior rather than stated as a tool-selection rule.

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

All FortFi Treasury MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?