audit_listRetrieve audit log entries from the Advernue API, filtered by action, entity ID, entity type, or limit, to inspect account activity and changes.
Audit log entries (GET /v1/audit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| actionId | No | ||
| entityId | No | ||
| entityType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of default limit, ordering, retention window, or pagination behavior for a log-listing endpoint.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline; there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or how to narrow results.
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 four-parameter filtered log query with no output schema and no field documentation anywhere, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a meaningful call beyond a bare request.
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% across four parameters (limit, actionId, entityId, entityType), and the description compensates for none of it — not even what entityType values are accepted or what limit defaults to.
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?
"Audit log entries (GET /v1/audit)" restates the tool title and name with no verb, no scope, and no statement of what an audit entry contains. The parenthetical endpoint adds nothing an agent can use to distinguish it from sibling security/members_audit tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of alternatives such as members_audit or security_verifyAudit, which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.