Lists the MCP server's action journal for Linux hosts, including time, host, outcome, and plan hash. Filter by host, date, or text to audit changes and track drift.
What this server did to hosts: every action with time, host, outcome and planHash (newest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO date/time | |
| contains | No |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and newest-first ordering, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authorization, how pagination or limits behave, or what planHash represents.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, return content, and ordering.
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 partially covers the tool's behavior by naming returned fields and sorting, but it omits filter semantics, pagination/limit behavior, and usage context. With no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the definition only adequate, not 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?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the host, limit, or contains parameters. Only since has schema-level documentation as an ISO date/time, while the description focuses on returned fields rather than input filters.
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 resource and content: every action the server performed on hosts, with time, host, outcome, planHash, and newest-first ordering. It is specific enough to understand the tool, but it does not distinguish this from sibling audit/history tools such as fleet_audit, fleet_changes, or host_logs.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only describes output content and ordering, leaving the agent to infer its role among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.