nexterm-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nexterm_get_audit_logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter Nexterm audit logs by action, resource, organization, and date range with bounded pagination to review server activity.

Instructions

Query Nexterm audit logs with bounded pagination and filters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nexterm_get_audit_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`action`	No
`offset`	No
`end_date`	No
`resource`	No
`start_date`	No
`organization_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds 'bounded pagination,' which implies a result cap, but says nothing about ordering, retention window, or how organization_id='personal' changes scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, and the scope modifiers come immediately after the verb+resource. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 7 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description needs to carry much more: which filters combine, what the bound actually is, and what a log record contains. As written, an agent can guess the call shape but not call it correctly with confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters — all fields carry only titles and defaults. The phrase 'pagination and filters' gestures at limit/offset and action/resource/date filters but adds no meaning: no date format expectations, no note that action/resource are prefix or exact matches, and no explanation of the integer-or-'personal' organization_id union.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Nexterm audit logs') with the two axes of control (bounded pagination, filters). This distinguishes it from the read siblings like nexterm_get_audit_metadata, but it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly contrast the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this or nexterm_get_audit_metadata, and there is no note on required permissions or org scoping.

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

Deploy Server