Retrieve the append-only audit log and current document revision to trace changes and confirm version.
Describe the append-only audit log and current document revision
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| documentRevision | No | ||
| operationFingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds some useful context by characterizing the audit log as append-only and mentioning that the current document revision is included, but it does not disclose details like how results are ordered, whether the limit affects the returned entries, or whether the log is scoped to the current document.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The key resource is front-loaded, though the verb 'Describe' could be more precise.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description conveys the general purpose, but it leaves ambiguity around whether the tool returns a summary or actual audit entries, and it omits how the `limit` parameter interacts with the audit log. The output schema covers return structure, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for correct invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the `limit` parameter at all. Although the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema provides default/min/max constraints, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, which is the stated requirement when coverage is low.
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 identifies a specific resource—the append-only audit log—and the current document revision, which is distinct from the sibling tools. The verb 'Describe' is slightly ambiguous because the tool name implies retrieving history, but the resource scope is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from other tools.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no preferred context. An agent must infer from the name and the phrase 'audit log' that this is for inspecting history, but no direct usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.