View the latest human decisions from the ticket triage audit log, showing what the AI proposed and whether reviewers approved, edited, or rejected each item.
The latest human decisions from the audit log, newest first: what the AI proposed and whether the reviewer approved, edited or rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the underlying data (proposal vs. approval/edit/rejection), but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or how 'latest' is bounded — real behavioral gaps for a list 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the colon-clause about record contents is information-dense with no filler. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any treatment of the limit parameter and any routing guidance versus the three siblings — enough that the definition is only minimally viable for tool selection.
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 single parameter (limit, default 10) has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on the maximum, default behavior, or whether omitting it returns everything. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific resource (human decisions from the audit log) and states ordering plus the content of each record (proposal + reviewer outcome). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_decisions, but the 'latest/newest first' framing makes the recency scope clear.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'latest ... newest first' suggests this is the recency view rather than a query tool, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_decisions or how it relates to queue_status/pending_items. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.