agent_audit_record
Record an agent action for audit and compliance
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | ||
| output | No | ||
| agentId | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| actionName | Yes | ||
| actionType | Yes |
Japan Public Ledgers MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavioral traits such as idempotency or rate limits. The description only states the action without behavioral context.
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?
One sentence with 8 words is concise, but it sacrifices valuable information. It earns its place only minimally; the brevity leads to ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations, the description is inadequate for a tool recording audit data. Missing details on record structure, required fields, and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from names and types.
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?
Description clearly states 'Record an agent action for audit and compliance,' which communicates a write operation distinct from query/report siblings. However, 'agent action' is vague and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_audit_query or agent_audit_report. No context on prerequisites or expected use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.