swsd-mcp

swsd_get_record_audits

Read-onlyIdempotent

List audit log entries for SWSD records (tickets, problems, changes, etc.) showing each change, user, and timestamp. Answer who modified a record or what changed recently without loading full details.

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.

First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is well-covered. The description adds valuable context: it is 'cheaper' than the alternative, and it describes the structure of each audit entry, helping an agent understand what to expect. It doesn't fully describe pagination or output format, but annotations lower the burden.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by concrete use cases and a cost comparison. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the purpose, use cases, alternative tools, and the content of returned audit entries. With an output schema present and annotations declaring read-only behavior, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or interpret its results is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description repeats the list of object_type values but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the audit log for a SWSD record') and defines the expected content (action, message, user, timestamp). It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on audit history, and explicitly notes it as an alternative to swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete questions ('who changed this ticket?', 'what happened since I last looked?') and a cost-based decision between this tool and swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long. This gives an agent clear routing criteria.

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

Install Server