Odile Gate Oversight

Read the audit log

gate_read_audit

Read-only

Returns recent gateway calls (time, app, matched route, status, reason, duration); use it to investigate individual calls across the project rather than gate_get_metrics aggregates or a single gate_get_run_timeline. Newest first, with totals by status and refusal reason for the returned calls. This view never returns bodies, query values or headers. For 24-hour totals and anomaly scores use gate_get_metrics; for a signed export an auditor can check, gate_export_audit_proof; for one run's history, gate_get_run_timeline.

Tool call template

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "admin_key": "<admin_key>"
    },
    "name": "gate_read_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	No	Optional: only this app id (app_...)
`limit`	No	How many calls (default 20)
`status`	No	Optional: only this HTTP status, e.g. "403"
`admin_key`	Yes	The project admin key (ga_...). Read it from the .env; never print it.
`project_id`	Yes	The project id from gate_create_project, e.g. p1a2b3...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value beyond them: newest-first ordering, per-status/refusal-reason totals, and an explicit redaction guarantee ('never returns bodies, query values or headers'). It omits pagination/truncation behavior and any rate-limit context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then alternatives and the redaction constraint. The second sentence partly repeats the alternatives already implied by the first, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the returned fields and aggregates. The remaining gap is pagination/truncation and how limit interacts with the status/app filters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults, bounds and the admin_key handling note. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no filter combination semantics), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns recent gateway calls') and enumerates the returned fields (time, app, matched route, status, reason, duration). It explicitly contrasts itself with gate_get_metrics and gate_get_run_timeline, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives with their selecting conditions: gate_get_metrics for 24-hour totals/anomaly scores, gate_export_audit_proof for a signed export, gate_get_run_timeline for one run's history. When-not guidance is implicit in that routing, which is strong enough here.

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

All Odile Gate Oversight 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?