Query write-action audit logs with filters for user, tool, and limit. Admin-only tool for monitoring and compliance.
Query the write-action audit log (admin only).
user_id: filter by actor (optional). tool_name: filter by tool (optional). limit: max rows to return (default 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| tool_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the significant traits: admin-only access and that only write actions are recorded. It does not state read-only behavior, ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or what happens on permission failure, so it falls short of the bar expected with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Purpose and admin caveat are front-loaded in a single clear sentence, then parameters are listed compactly. No filler text, and it is not bloated for a three-parameter query tool.
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. For a simple filtered read tool with all-optional parameters, purpose, access requirement and filter semantics are covered; only richer filter-behavior and failure semantics are missing.
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 0%, so the one-line per-parameter notes are genuinely useful, clarifying the actor filter, tool filter and default limit. However they are thin for a 0%-coverage schema, offering no format hints (e.g. user_id shape, tool_name exact-match vs substring, limit bounds), so the description only partly compensates.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: query the write-action audit log, and flags it as admin-only. Despite having 47 siblings, none is an audit-log reader, so it is easily distinguished from the notes, figures and sync tools around it.
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 by the resource name itself; the description never says when an agent should reach for the audit log versus, say, get_decisions or auth_context. The 'write-action' and 'admin only' qualifiers give some narrowing context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.