Retrieve administrator actions logged in Cisco Duo, optionally filtering by Unix epoch start time to audit admin activity.
Get the administrator log (v1) - actions taken by Duo administrators in this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mintime | No | Only return events at or after this Unix epoch second timestamp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope of the log and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, the default time window when mintime is omitted, authorization requirements, or the response shape, all of which would be more relevant for a log retrieval tool without annotations.
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 that names the action, the resource, and the data scope with no filler. The parenthetical '(v1)' is minor but informative. Every word earns 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 one-optional-parameter log reader, the description plus schema gives a usable baseline. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks insight into the response format, pagination, or default behavior when mintime is absent. The tool is not complex, but a few more behavioral details would make the definition complete.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter mintime, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no additional meaning about how mintime behaves or relates to the log, but the schema's own description is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the specific resource ('administrator log (v1)') and its content ('actions taken by Duo administrators in this account'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling log tools like duo_get_authentication_log and duo_get_telephony_log because it names the actor and scope.
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 implies usage when an agent needs administrator action audit data, and it scopes the log to 'this account', but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool instead of the authentication or telephony log siblings, nor mention any exclusions. Context is present but guidance is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.