Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_audit_log

Retrieve audit log entries from MCP Hub to track events, filter by event type or project, and review recent activity for troubleshooting or compliance.

Instructions

Get audit log entries (Phase X.3).

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": "get_audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
event_typeNo
project_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 and delivers almost nothing: no mention of ordering, pagination, retention window, or required permissions. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but an audit-log read tool should still signal ordering and volume behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise, and the "(Phase X.3)" tag is internal noise occupying a third of the text. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content.

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?

For a filtered list tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent without enough to invoke it correctly beyond guessing defaults. The output schema covers the response shape, but input semantics and usage context are absent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

All three parameters (limit, event_type, project_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them. It does not explain that limit caps entries returned, what values event_type accepts, or whether project_id scopes the log.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Get audit log entries" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell it retrieves audit log data. However, "(Phase X.3)" is internal jargon that adds no meaning, and nothing distinguishes this from sibling read tools such as get_project_info or get_system_info.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what the alternatives are. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the place to look for audit trail data.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools