Skip to main content
Glama

nittim

by com.nittim

Fetch a Saved Audit

get_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a nittim audit by its UUID, at any stage. A finished audit returns the compact markdown digest — verdict, scores and top findings — plus its report link. An audit that is STILL RUNNING says so — not an error, and not a missing id. A second audit of the same commit is charged again and produces two verdicts for one commit. A FAILED audit says why it failed and, if you own it, what happened to the charge. Reading needs the key of the account that owns the audit; minting a new key does not grant access to somebody else's report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe UUID of the saved audit, from the /report/{id} URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: running audits return a status rather than an error, repeated audits of the same commit create separate verdicts and charges, and failed audits explain failure and refund status. It also states the ownership requirement clearly. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value behavioral facts. Every sentence conveys information an agent needs: result format, in-progress behavior, duplicate-charge consequence, failure handling, and access control. It is detailed without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still covers the main return contents (markdown digest, verdict, scores, findings, report link) and edge cases (running, failed, unauthorized). For a one-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% and the single id parameter is well described in the schema as a UUID from the /report/{id} URL. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a nittim audit by its UUID, at any stage.' It clearly identifies the operation as fetching a saved audit, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, scan, or run audits.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: it works at any audit stage, handles running audits gracefully, and requires ownership of the audit's key. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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

All nittim toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to distinct workflow stages: estimate, preview, submit audit, retrieve audit, run module, dispute finding, and judge output. The closest pairs are audit_repo vs audit_source and scan_source vs run_module, but the descriptions provide enough boundary detail for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_repo, audit_source, estimate_audit, get_audit, list_modules, run_module, scan_source, and so on. There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague standalone verbs.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a paid AI audit service with async delivery, approval flows, and both repo-based and source-based inputs. Each tool covers a distinct step in the audit pipeline without feeling redundant or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: estimate cost, submit audits, run single modules, check status, retrieve results, and dispute findings. Minor gaps include no way to list past audits, cancel a pending audit, or manage credits directly, though estimate_audit does show the balance.

Resources