Skip to main content
Glama
lara-muhanna

MCP Airlock

by lara-muhanna

airlock_audit_tail

Retrieve recent signed provenance events to monitor capability leases and verify tamper-evident audit trails for security compliance.

Instructions

Read recent signed provenance events.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for airlock_audit_tail tool - reads recent signed provenance events with a configurable limit
    if name == AIRLOCK_AUDIT_TAIL:
        limit = int(args.get("limit", 20))
        events = self.ledger.tail(limit=max(1, min(limit, 200)))
        return _mcp_tool_success({"events": events})
  • Registration of airlock_audit_tail tool descriptor including name, description, and input schema
    {
        "name": AIRLOCK_AUDIT_TAIL,
        "description": "Read recent signed provenance events.",
        "inputSchema": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {"limit": {"type": "integer", "default": 20}},
            "required": [],
        },
    },
  • Helper method tail() in ProvenanceLedger class that retrieves recent audit log entries with a limit
    def tail(self, limit: int = 20) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
        if not self.log_path.exists():
            return []
    
        lines = self.log_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines()
        output: List[Dict[str, Any]] = []
        for line in lines[-limit:]:
            try:
                output.append(json.loads(line))
            except json.JSONDecodeError:
                output.append({"raw": line, "error": "invalid-json"})
        return output
  • Constant definition for the airlock_audit_tail tool name
    AIRLOCK_AUDIT_TAIL = "airlock_audit_tail"
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it notes events are 'recent' and 'signed', it fails to specify the time window for 'recent', result ordering, return format, pagination behavior, or the implications of 'signed' (verification requirements?). This leaves critical behavioral gaps for an audit tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at five words, immediately front-loading the verb and object. While efficient, this brevity is arguably inappropriate given the complete absence of annotations and schema descriptions, leaving the description too terse to stand alone as documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a security/audit tool handling cryptographically signed provenance data, the description is inadequate. With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description should explain what data structure is returned and what 'airlock' provenance tracks, but it provides none of this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter. The description completely fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose, valid ranges, or default behavior (20). The agent has no textual guidance on how to use the only available parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('signed provenance events'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'airlock_issue_capability' (which issues/writes) and the unrelated 'weather_hourly' and 'http_get_json' tools. However, it could better clarify what constitutes a 'provenance event' in this specific 'airlock' domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., specific permissions needed to read signed audit trails) or when not to use it. The agent receives no signals about appropriate usage contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lara-muhanna/mcp-airlock'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server