base_account_get_system_logsTrack changes in Base Account by retrieving system logs. Get a paginated audit trail of modifications to employees, projects, and tasks for review.
Lấy nhật ký hệ thống (System Logs) trên Base Account để theo dõi các thay đổi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation reads system logs, but it does not mention pagination behavior, date-range handling, required authentication, or what kind of changes are tracked. The safety profile is only weakly inferred from the word 'get'.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it partly repeats the tool name and could have used the space to clarify parameters or usage.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description gives no context about filtering, authentication, pagination, or intended scope, making it insufficient for reliable 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 description coverage is 0% and none of the six parameters (start, end, username, page, limit, access_token) are explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and schema defaults, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.
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 clearly identifies the action ('get system logs') and the resource ('Base Account'), and adds a purpose ('to monitor changes'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as base_account_get_user_logins or base_wework_get_task_logs, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'to monitor changes' implies a use case, but it does not specify exclusions, prerequisites, or why an agent should pick this over sibling log-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.