Get Workspace Audit Logs. Returns the audit log for the workspace. Requires enterprise tier and the audit_log_read permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| actor_uid | No | ||
| class_name | No | ||
| activity_name | No | ||
| time_to_unix_ms | No | ||
| time_from_unix_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious context by disclosing the enterprise tier and exact permission requirements, which is valuable beyond what the annotations provide.
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 compact and efficient: two sentences, with the core purpose first and the access constraints second. There is no filler or redundant expansion.
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 8 optional filter and pagination parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain how filtering and pagination work or at least describe the shape of the returned log. It only covers the basic purpose and permission requirements.
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?
There are 8 parameters, all optional, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the pagination cursor, filtering by actor, class, activity, time range, or account parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of per-parameter descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource action, 'Get Workspace Audit Logs', and clearly states that it returns the audit log for the workspace. It is unambiguous and distinct from related workspace tools such as member or service account retrieval.
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 gives important eligibility information by requiring enterprise tier and the audit_log_read permission, which helps the agent know whether the call can succeed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.