Fetch structured persisted audit entries for a task after a sequence cursor. Provide task_id, optional limit, and after_sequence to retrieve incremental logs.
Return structured persisted Task audit entries after a sequence cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| after_sequence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds the concept of a sequence cursor, implying incremental access, but does not detail ordering, pagination behavior, or response format. Given annotation coverage, this is minimal but acceptable.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and omits unnecessary detail.
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?
For a read-only audit getter with no output schema, the description provides a high-level return type but lacks details on pagination, ordering, and the exact response shape. While annotations help with the safety profile, more operational context would improve completeness.
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 description must compensate. It only clarifies 'after_sequence' via the cursor mention, leaving limit and task_id unexplained. The description does not fully resolve parameter meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('Task audit entries'), and a qualifier ('after a sequence cursor'). This differentiates it from all listed sibling tools, none of which relate to audit retrieval.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or common use cases. An agent must infer its role purely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.