qidi-mcp

get_audit_log

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves every non-read printer action taken this session, including risk tier, arguments, and outcome with refusals, so you can verify what the agent actually did.

Instructions

Every non-read action this MCP server has taken on the printer this session, with risk tier, arguments, and outcome (including refusals). Use it to answer 'what did the agent actually do to my printer?'

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that scope is session-only and that refusals are included in the outcomes. It does not disclose truncation, ordering, or how many entries are retained, which matters for an audit tool where completeness is the whole point.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the data content front-loaded and the motivating use case second. Every clause (session scope, risk tier, arguments, refusals) carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 the description covers scope and content well. The one remaining gap is the untruncated/paginated behavior tied to 'count', which an agent needs to know before trusting the log as a complete record.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter 'count' has 0% schema description coverage and a bare default of 30, and the description never mentions it. Whether count is a page size, a hard cap, or whether older entries are dropped is left entirely ambiguous, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific resource (the session's audit log of non-read actions) with contents enumerated: risk tier, arguments, outcome including refusals. The 'non-read actions' qualifier clearly separates it from the log-reading siblings like get_gcode_log and get_klipper_log, so the agent can pick it without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a concrete usage trigger via the quoted question 'what did the agent actually do to my printer?', which maps directly to auditing agent behavior. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., use get_print_history for read-only print records), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server