Fetch recent VaultShell activity logs with entry names and redacted commands only, letting users review past actions without exposing secret values.
Query recent audit entries (newest last). Entries contain names and redacted commands only, never values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max entries, default 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest last) and the redaction policy (names and redacted commands, never values), but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether the read is safe/reversible beyond the implied 'query' verb.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The ordering and redaction constraints are front-loaded and every clause carries information the agent needs.
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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description discloses the return shape (names and redacted commands) and ordering, which is what an agent most needs. The only minor gap is that 'recent' is undefined and no time-window behavior is given.
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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage including bounds (1-500) and default (50), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the limit parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 when coverage is high.
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?
States a specific verb (Query) and resource (audit entries) with scoping ('recent') and ordering ('newest last'). It is clearly distinguishable from secret/shell/rule siblings by name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any alternative or explain what an audit entry is.
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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not reference any alternative such as secret_list or rule_list. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.