Identify unique actors recorded in audit logs for tracking tool call origins.
Get unique actor values from audit logs.
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": "agentgate_get_audit_actors"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation (getting values) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements. For a simple query tool with no parameters, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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?
The description is extremely concise at six words, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and every word adds value. Given the tool's simplicity, this level of conciseness is ideal.
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?
The description is short and covers the basic function, but it does not describe the return format or any pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, more context about the output (e.g., an array of strings) would improve completeness. However, for a simple tool with no parameters, it is partially adequate.
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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is unnecessary. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as the description doesn't need to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 states the tool's purpose: to retrieve unique actor values from audit logs. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique actor values'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'agentgate_list_audit_logs', which might also return actor information.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it's unclear if 'agentgate_list_audit_logs' could also provide actor data or how they differ. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.