Fetch a single audit log entry by ID, including before/after snapshots when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auditLogId | Yes | Audit log ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description | |
| summary | Yes | One-line human-readable summary of the action | |
| renderType | Yes | UI rendering hint for the result |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'including before/after snapshots when available', which goes beyond the structured fields and informs the agent of conditional return content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch', and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema provided, annotations covering safety), the description is fairly complete. It could benefit from explicit differentiation from sibling audit tools, but it still covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for auditLogId (described as 'Audit log ID'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema and tool name already convey, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Fetch a single audit log entry by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_audit_logs and search_audit_logs by focusing on a single entry identified by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an audit log ID is known, but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_audit_logs or list_audit_logs. Context is clear, yet no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.