termix_audit_list_audit_logsRetrieve paginated audit logs with filters for user, action, date, success, and resource type. Helps admins review activity and investigate changes on a Termix instance.
List audit logs. Returns paginated, filterable audit log entries. Admin only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| resourceType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds 'Admin only' as an authorization requirement and notes pagination/filtering, which are useful beyond the schema. It doesn't detail response format or pagination limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 short sentences front-load the core purpose ('List audit logs') and then add only high-value behavior and access info. No wasted words or redundancy with the title.
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?
Annotations cover safety, and 'Admin only' covers authorization, but the 8 optional parameters and pagination/filter semantics are left undocumented while no output schema exists. The description is adequate for selecting the tool but not fully sufficient for correctly invoking it with meaningful filters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only says entries are 'paginated, filterable' without explaining any of the 8 parameters. No meaning is added for page, limit, action, userId, date ranges, success, or resourceType.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'audit log entries', making its scope unambiguous. Adding 'paginated, filterable' differentiates it from sibling tools like list_distinct_audit_log_action_types and export_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?
The 'Admin only' note provides a clear access context, and the pagination/filter statement implies use when full audit log entries are needed. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer export or distinct action-type listing, so guidance is more implied than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.