semantic-saga-mcp

get_audit_events

Retrieve append-only audit events for a saga with optional filtering by event type and count, while ensuring action inputs, results, and secrets remain hidden.

Instructions

Read append-only audit events without exposing action inputs, results, or secret material.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "saga_id": "<saga_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_audit_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`saga_id`	Yes
`event_types`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: audit events are append-only, and the response avoids exposing action inputs, results, or secret material. However, it does not explain ordering, pagination, event retention, or what fields are actually returned, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a valuable safety qualifier without wasting words.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings. The description covers only the basic idea and redaction behavior, leaving out parameter usage, return shape, and when to prefer this over related audit or saga tools. It is not complete enough for confident autonomous invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining saga_id, limit, or event_types. An agent gets no help understanding what event_types values are valid, why saga_id is required, or how limit affects retrieval.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool reads audit events and adds the important qualifier that they are append-only. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling verify_audit_chain, which also deals with audit data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_audit_chain, get_saga_timeline, or list_actions. There is no mention of when it should or should not be used, making routing decisions left entirely to the agent.

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

Deploy Server