get_audit_trailRead VaultCrux Memory Core import audit history and linked receipt hashes for a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| topic | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / sourcePlatform / enumPrevious value: -[
- "openai",
- "claude",
- "gmail",
- "slack",
- "browser",
- "manual"
-]New value: +[
+ "openai",
+ "claude",
+ "gmail",
+ "slack",
+ "browser",
+ "manual",
+ "ob1"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, which is a key trait. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, error handling, or what exactly 'linked receipt hashes' entails, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Read', and contains no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function and scope.
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?
For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the core intent but omits the limit parameter and any usage context (e.g., when to choose this over other get_* tools). It is adequate but lacks detail needed for full autonomous selection.
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?
The description mentions 'for a topic', covering the required topic parameter, but the optional limit parameter is never mentioned. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the agent receives no guidance on the limit's purpose or its relation to the result set beyond raw schema constraints.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('VaultCrux Memory Core import audit history and linked receipt hashes'), and scopes it by 'for a topic'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools such as get_checkpoints or get_contradictions.
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 clearly identifies the context (audit history for a topic) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The phrasing 'for a topic' gives clear context, but there is no mention of when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to use instead.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.