Query and verify aud_ audit logs with HMAC-SHA256 hash chains for compliance auditors. Read-only access; supports limit and action filters.
Read-only query and HMAC-SHA256 hash-chain verification of aud_ audit logs for ComplianceAuditor tokens. User, role, and IdP admin mutations are excluded from MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| actionFilter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, cryptographic tamper-evidence via HMAC-SHA256 hash chains, the required auth (ComplianceAuditor tokens), and an explicit scope exclusion. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, but the safety and behavior profile is solidly conveyed.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the scope constraint. No filler; every clause conveys signal.
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?
The behavioral picture is reasonably complete for a read query, but with 0% schema coverage this tool needs the description to explain its two filter/paging parameters, and it does not. No output schema exists, so return-value guidance is also absent, leaving a gap an agent would notice.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (limit, actionFilter) is mentioned in the description. The agent gets no meaning for 'actionFilter' beyond its name, and no hint that limit is capped at 500 or relates to result paging. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verbs (query, hash-chain verify) and a precise resource (aud_<ulid> audit logs), with the verification mechanism (HMAC-SHA256) named. This clearly distinguishes it from the vault_* siblings, none of which deal with audit logs.
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?
It identifies the required token type (ComplianceAuditor) and notes that user/role/IdP admin mutations are excluded, which is useful scoping. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or the conditions that trigger verification vs plain querying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.