Get a specific audit event by its ID.
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": {
"audit_event_id": "<audit_event_id>"
},
"name": "get_audit_event"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_event_id | Yes | The audit event ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond the annotation and does not disclose error behavior, not-found handling, or return format.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the action and target with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter read operation with a read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient. An agent knows the required input and that the operation is non-mutating, though no return shape is described since no output schema exists.
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 only parameter, audit_event_id, is fully documented in the schema as 'The audit event ID,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 and resource: 'Get a specific audit event by its ID,' making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from list_audit_events. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling list tool.
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 phrase 'by its ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single known event rather than listing events, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage context is only implied.
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.