Skip to main content
Glama

Audit Query

audit_query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read tenant-scoped audit records filtered by action, resource, or time range. Returns paginated results with chain position to verify control-plane changes.

Instructions

Read tenant-scoped control-plane audit records with filters and paging.

    Returns the immutable, hash-chained audit log of control-plane actions
    (identity, shield, firewall, and policy changes) for one tenant, with
    optional filtering by action, resource, and start time. Read-only: it
    never mutates enforcement state.

    Args:
        tenant_id: Tenant scope to read (default control-plane tenant).
        action: Optional audit action filter (exact match).
        resource: Optional audit resource filter (exact match).
        since: Optional ISO-8601 timestamp lower bound.
        limit: Maximum audit records to return (1-1000).
        offset: Pagination offset.

    Returns:
        JSON with the matched audit records (actor, action, resource,
        timestamp, chain position) and pagination metadata.

    Call this to review who changed what in the control plane; pair with
    ``audit_integrity`` to verify the chain has not been tampered with.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum audit records to return.
sinceNoOptional ISO timestamp lower bound.
actionNoOptional audit action filter.
offsetNoPagination offset.
resourceNoOptional audit resource filter.
tenant_idNoTenant scope to read. Defaults to the control-plane default tenant.default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the audit log is immutable, hash-chained, and that the tool never mutates enforcement state. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured, but the Args section is somewhat verbose and repeats schema details. Still clear and logically organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, filtering, paging, and pairing with audit_integrity. No gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's Args section mostly repeats schema descriptions without adding new meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 clearly states it reads tenant-scoped control-plane audit records with filters and paging, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_integrity by specifying that it is for reviewing changes while integrity verification is separate.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this to review who changed what in the control plane; pair with audit_integrity to verify the chain has not been tampered with.' This tells when to use and suggests an alternative for verification.

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/msaad00/agent-bom'

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