get_audit
Re-reads an audit already made, with fixes (the ready fix for each finding).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Audit ID, from `Audit.id`. | |
| guest_token | Yes |
pageaudit
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- added
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Audit ID, from `Audit.id`."
- First observed
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a non-mutating retrieval ('re-reads') but offers no detail on side effects, return structure, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the core action and mention of fixes, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context: the purpose of 'guest_token', the complete output shape, and any relationship to other audit tools. Given no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 'id' has a description (audit ID from Audit.id); 'guest_token' is completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 indicates a read operation to retrieve an existing audit, and the 'get_audit' name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state the output format or the role of fixes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any preconditions. The description does not mention any context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools relate to auditing (audit_url, get_audit, run_tab) which might cause confusion, but descriptions clarify the differences. Overall, there is some overlap but each has a distinct role.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern, but a few (billing, contact, health, api_index) are plain nouns, making the naming inconsistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server covers core audit functionality plus auxiliary features like billing and health, which is appropriate for its scope.
Completeness4/5
The server provides tools for auditing URLs, managing tabs, retrieving results, patches, badges, and listing tools. Missing delete/update operations for tabs or audits, but these are not critical for a page audit service.