Retrieve recent audit log entries to track all KSeF operations including draft creation, approvals, and sends. NIPs are hashed (SHA-256) for security.
Wyświetl ostatnie wpisy z logu audytowego. Log zawiera wszystkie operacje: tworzenie draftów, zatwierdzenia, wysyłki. NIP-y są zahashowane (SHA-256) dla bezpieczeństwa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Liczba wpisów do pobrania (domyślnie 20, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the log contains all operation types and NIPs are SHA-256 hashed for security. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second adds scope and a security-relevant detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
This is a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, and the description communicates the purpose, log scope, and NIP hashing. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about returned entry fields could help, but it is adequate for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, limit, is already fully described with its default and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Wyświetl' — display) and resource ('wpisy z logu audytowego' — audit log entries), and further clarifies the log covers creating drafts, approvals, and shipments. No sibling tool targets the audit log, so it is clearly distinguished.
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?
The description implies the tool is for viewing recent audit trail activity across operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling audit-log tool exists, so the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.