Cyphrex

log_action

Log an executed action for a Cyphrex agent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`agentId`	Yes
`metadata`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

removedInput schema / properties / apiKey

Removed value: -{
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "agentId",
-  "action",
-  "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+  "agentId",
+  "action"
+]

First observedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states that it logs an action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., storage writes), authorization requirements, error behaviors, or what happens to previously logged data. The word 'executed' adds a small hint about the action's state but nothing more.

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?

The description is a single, tight sentence with no redundant words, making it highly concise. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so it loses one point for not being appropriately sized for a tool that needs more context.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain return values, parameter behaviors, or any edge cases, making it nearly impossible for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely aligns with the action and agentId parameters. The metadata parameter is entirely unexplored, and no details are given about accepted shapes or relationships between parameters.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as logging an executed action for a Cyphrex agent, specifying the verb 'log' and the resource. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_action or get_audit_log, the purpose is unambiguous enough for basic selection.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases. It is a simple declarative sentence without any usage instructions.

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

All Cyphrex tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: checking proposed actions, logging/reading audit data, proxying requests, registering/verifying agents, scanning different payload types, and setting profiles. The separation between check_action and scan_mcp_tool_result is clear from their descriptions (proposed action vs. upstream result).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_action, get_audit_log, set_behavior_profile). No mixing of styles or vague verbs beyond standard operation names.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a security-focused MCP governance server. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or excessive granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: agent registration, verification, behavior profiling, action checking/logging, audit retrieval, proxying, and scanning. Minor gaps include no explicit agent removal or policy management tools, but these may be intentionally outside the server's scope.

Resources

Need Help?