NitroWatch

get_audit_log

Retrieve the complete decision history, including classifications, allowed, blocked, approved, denied, and promoted actions, with the responsible user for each entry.

Instructions

Return the full decision history: what was classified, allowed, blocked, approved, denied, promoted, and by whom.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`serverId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the content of the log (what was decided and by whom) and implies a read-only operation ('Return'). However, it does not mention pagination behaviors (limit), authentication requirements, or whether the log is filterable by server, which are relevant for a tool with parameters.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides a useful enumeration of included decision types. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate for that. While it clearly states the tool's purpose, it omits key behavioral details (e.g., pagination via limit, server scoping, return format). The lack of parameter explanation and result format leaves the description incomplete for practical use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'limit' or 'serverId' parameters. An agent cannot determine what these parameters do or how they affect the returned history, leaving the schema as the only (minimal) guidance.

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?

The description uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies a specific resource ('full decision history'), listing the types of decisions included (classified, allowed, blocked, approved, denied, promoted) and by whom. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like approve_action or deny_action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for reviewing historical decisions, which contrasts with sibling tools that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, mention prerequisites, or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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

Deploy Server