Audit the action ledger by counting actions, oversight events by type and actor, human decisions, errors without oversight, stops, and disclosures per session.
Counts from the action ledger an auditor asks for: actions, oversight events by type and by actor, actions with a human decision attached, error actions with no oversight after them, stops, and disclosures by session. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.39.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only', which is essential behavioral information. It also clarifies that the tool returns aggregate counts rather than raw ledger rows, giving useful semantic transparency beyond a simple tool name.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource before listing the distinct count categories in a readable series. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant wording.
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 parameter-free read-only report, the description covers the main output categories and the safety profile adequately. Minor uncertainty remains about return format or pagination, but these are not critical for invoking a no-input tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the variety of counts returned rather than input details.
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 clearly identifies the tool as producing counts from the action ledger and enumerates the specific metrics it returns, making its purpose evident. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling report tools such as token_report or compliance_report, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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 'an auditor asks for' implies an audience but gives no concrete guidance on when this tool should be used instead of the many sibling report/audit tools. There are no when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.