Inspect integrity-checked sanitized audit events to review block producer maintenance actions and verify workflow history.
Read integrity-checked sanitized audit events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that events are integrity-checked and sanitized, but does not explain those terms or disclose other behaviors such as authentication, output limits, or ordering.
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, compact statement with no filler words. Every adjective adds relevant context about the nature of the returned audit events.
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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description tells the agent what it will receive and that no input is required. A minor gap is that 'integrity-checked' and 'sanitized' are not elaborated, and there is no output schema, but this is sufficient for a simple no-argument read.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, which is the baseline-4 case. The description has no parameter semantics to supply because no parameters exist.
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 names a specific action ('Read') and resource ('audit events') with qualifiers ('integrity-checked sanitized') that clarify what kind of data is returned. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but 'audit events' is clearly distinct from pool_status, pool_checks, rotation_plan, rotation_status, and rotation_execute.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_checks or rotation_status. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving selection entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.