iSuite Operations MCP Server

export_audit_trail

Export audit trail logs for a specified date range to CSV, JSON, or XLSX, with optional filtering by user or action.

Instructions

Export audit trail logs for a given date range to a downloadable file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dateFrom": "<dateFrom>"
    },
    "name": "export_audit_trail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dateFrom`	Yes	ISO-8601 start datetime for the export.
`dateTo`	No	ISO-8601 end datetime for the export.
`format`	No	Export file format (default 'csv').
`userId`	No	Optional: restrict export to a specific user's activity.
`action`	No	Optional: restrict export to a specific action type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavior like synchronicity, download mechanism, data limits, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral info.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. Missing details about output format, download process, and optional filter behavior.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds the context of 'date range' but does not add meaning beyond the schema for format, userId, or action.

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 (export), resource (audit trail logs), and scope (date range). It distinguishes from siblings like get_audit_log or search_audit_logs by implying file download, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_audit_logs, get_audit_log). No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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