Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mohabdo21

linux-mcp

by Mohabdo21
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

get_audit_logs

Read recent Linux auditd events from /var/log/audit/audit.log to investigate AVC denials and syscall records; specify lines, defaulting to 50.

Instructions

Returns Linux audit (auditd) events from /var/log/audit/audit.log: AVC denials and syscall records. lines defaults to 50. Read-only; fatal if the file is unreadable (auditd not installed or not readable). Use for auditd denial and syscall forensics; get_journal_logs for the systemd journal and kernel messages, get_failed_logins for login attempts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesNonumber of recent entries (default: 50)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsNo
entriesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.18
    • removedInput schema / properties / source
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "audit source: 'journalctl', 'audit.log', or 'auto' (default: auto)",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior and a specific failure mode (fatal if the file is unreadable because auditd is not installed). It could add more on output volume/pagination limits, but the safety and failure profile is clear.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, then the failure constraint, then sibling routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained. The description covers source, content, default sizing, failure behavior, and alternatives, which is everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'lines' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's restatement ('lines defaults to 50') adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (returns auditd events from /var/log/audit/audit.log) and names the exact content types (AVC denials, syscall records). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_journal_logs and get_failed_logins directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for auditd denial and syscall forensics' and then routes the agent to the correct alternatives for adjacent needs (get_journal_logs for systemd/kernel, get_failed_logins for logins). No inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools