Audit trail for an asset: every version + who did what, paginated.
Audit trail for an asset: every version + who did what, paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the resource | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (max 100) | |
| request_source | No | Filter history by source; agent includes MCP and CLI, unknown includes historical or unattributed records. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Input schema / properties / request_sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter history by source; agent includes MCP and CLI, unknown includes historical or unattributed records.",
+ "enum": [
+ "web",
+ "api",
+ "mcp",
+ "cli",
+ "system",
+ "agent",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (versions plus who did what) and that results are paginated, but it does not state permission requirements, whether the tool is strictly read-only, or any retention/coverage limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The core purpose, returned content, and pagination behavior are all conveyed efficiently.
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-oriented audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will get back and that results are paginated. It could be stronger by mentioning permission requirements or how the request_source filter interacts with the audit trail.
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%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces pagination behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for id or the request_source filter.
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 resource and scope: an asset audit trail covering every version and actor actions, with pagination. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_asset_versions or get_tag_events.
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?
It implies the tool is for auditing an asset but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as get_asset_versions for version history alone. An agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.