base_account_get_user_loginsRetrieve system login history for a specific employee by username. Provides audit trails of sign-in activity to review user access.
Xem lịch sử đăng nhập hệ thống của một nhân viên cụ thể.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| 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 provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the read purpose without mentioning authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The access_token parameter is not explained, and there's no note on the scope of history returned.
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 concise sentence, which is front-loaded. However, it provides only the core purpose and nothing else; while concise, it could include more essential usage details without becoming verbose.
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?
With 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the output shape, pagination semantics, or the role of access_token. Given no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to call correctly.
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 the description provides no information about the parameters (username, page, limit, access_token). The agent must rely purely on the schema names and types, lacking any semantic guidance.
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 action (view) and resource (login history of a specific employee). It differentiates from sibling base_account_get_system_logs by specifying 'của một nhân viên cụ thể' (of a specific employee), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like base_account_get_system_logs. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.