Skip to main content
Glama

audit_export

Export signed audit bundles with verification proofs for compliance or procurement review replay.

Instructions

Export a compliance or procurement audit bundle with optional verification proofs.

Hosted (Team+): requires SSX360_API_KEY; calls ssx360.com/api/v1/audit/export with
date, signer, and format filters. Local fallback: exports envelopes from the working
tree when no API key is configured. Set ``include_verification`` for auditor-ready
replay artifacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoLocal-only: Git ref (exclusive) when exporting from git notes or on-disk envelopes.origin/main
headNoLocal-only: Git ref (inclusive) when exporting from git notes or on-disk envelopes.HEAD
formatNoExport serialization: json (envelope bundle), guac (GUAC JSONL ingest), or evidence-pack (hosted Team+ procurement bundle with verification metadata).json
end_dateNoISO 8601 UTC upper bound for audit records (inclusive), e.g. 2026-06-30T23:59:59Z.
signer_idNoFilter export to envelopes signed by this device_id (MS-XXXX-YYYY) or Ed25519 public-key fingerprint. Empty includes all signers in scope.
workspaceNoGit repository root for local fallback export. Empty auto-detects from cwd.
output_dirNoLocal-only: directory for exported files. Relative paths resolve under the repo root..matrixscroll/audit-export
start_dateNoISO 8601 UTC lower bound for audit records (inclusive), e.g. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z. Hosted export filters org audit history; local export filters by commit author date when available.
include_verificationNoWhen true (default), attach per-envelope verification results and trusted-key policy outcomes to the export for auditor replay without re-running Scroll Gate.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses two execution modes, the impact of include_verification (attaches verification results), and date inclusivity. It implies a read-only operation (export) and mentions authentication requirements for hosted mode. However, it does not discuss side effects or error conditions explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mode differentiation, and a key parameter highlight. It is focused and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, two modes, output schema exists), the description covers the main concepts but omits details on error handling, empty results, or performance. It suffices for basic invocation but leaves gaps for an agent needing deeper guidance.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions key parameters (date, signer, format filters, include_verification) but does not add substantial meaning beyond the comprehensive parameter descriptions already present in the schema. It provides useful context but not critical new details.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Export a compliance or procurement audit bundle with optional verification proofs.' It also specifies two operational modes (hosted and local fallback), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_envelope or verify_envelope. The verb 'Export' and resource 'audit bundle' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use hosted vs local mode based on API key availability, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like verify_envelope or list_envelopes. It lacks explicit when-not or comparative guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SSX360/matrixscroll'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server