Retrieve the audit trail for a trip to review proposal validation, approval, application, rejection, and rollback events. Trace the lifecycle of itinerary changes to identify why a proposal was rejected or applied.
Read the in-memory audit trail for proposal validation, approval, application, rejection, and rollback events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and 'in-memory' adds useful ephemerality context. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authorization needs, or whether the audit trail can be empty or cleared, so transparency is partial.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the storage medium, and the relevant event types efficiently, with every element earning its place.
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 simple read-only tool with one self-explanatory required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to infer the tool's purpose and call shape. It lacks explicit return-format or not-found behavior, but these are minor for such a straightforward retrieval tool.
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 the description does not compensate by explaining that trip_id identifies the trip whose audit trail is returned. The parameter name makes this somewhat inferable, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema's property definition.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly scoped resource ('in-memory audit trail'), and enumerates the event categories covered. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like get_trip and get_trip_context, which target current trip state rather than audit history.
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?
Usage is implied: call this tool when you need the audit history of proposal lifecycle events for a trip. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares with alternatives such as get_trip_context, get_change_proposal, or validate_change_proposal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.