swsd-mcp

swsd_get_record_audits

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a SolarWinds Service Desk record's audit log to see who changed it, what changed, and when. Retrieves incidents, problems, changes, releases, solutions, or asset history.

Instructions

List the audit log for a SWSD record. Each audit entry captures one change: action ("Update"/"Create"/"Delete"), message ("State changed from New to Assigned"), the user who performed it, and the timestamp. Use this to answer "who changed this ticket?" or "what happened since I last looked?". Cheaper than swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long when you only need the audit history. object_type accepts incidents, problems, changes, releases, solutions, hardwares, other_assets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Record id. When object_type is "incidents" or "solutions", accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits / <=4 digits respectively). Other object types require the internal id.
`page`	No	Page number (1-indexed).
`per_page`	No	Audits per page (1-100). Older records may have hundreds of audit entries; default 25 is enough for "recent activity" reads.
`object_type`	Yes	The SWSD record type to fetch audits for. Use 'incidents' for tickets, 'solutions' for KB articles, etc.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`audits`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by enumerating what each entry contains (action values, message format, actor, timestamp). It does not mention pagination ceilings or ordering, but the schema covers page/per_page defaults.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then the sibling tradeoff, then a required-param note. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still sketches entry structure, which is a bonus. For a read-only, 4-param list tool this covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying object_type semantics ('incidents' for tickets, 'solutions' for KB articles) and listing accepted values, which helps an agent map user intent to the enum. The id dual-format nuance is left to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('List the audit log for a SWSD record') and immediately scopes it by naming the sibling it substitutes for (swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long). An agent can distinguish this from the incident-listing and detail tools without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete use cases ('who changed this ticket?', 'what happened since I last looked?') and an explicit alternative-selection rule: cheaper than swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long when only audit history is needed. When-to-use and the tradeoff against a specific sibling are both stated.

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

Deploy Server