oneguard_logs_listReturns the organization audit log, showing who did what to which resource and when, to answer questions like 'who changed this secret?'
Returns the organization audit log — who did what to which resource, and when. Useful for answering "who changed this secret" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Return at most this many of the most recent entries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds content semantics but no additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or time-range behavior. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a mid score is appropriate.
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 states the resource, the content, and a practical use case. No filler or repetition; every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description and schema together are sufficient. It covers what the log contains and a motivating use case; minor gaps such as explicit ordering or time-range details are not critical for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, including a clear description of 'limit' as returning 'most recent entries.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the organization audit log' and details the content as 'who did what to which resource, and when.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like oneguard_vault_list or oneguard_secrets_list, which target different resources.
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?
Gives a concrete usage context: 'Useful for answering "who changed this secret" questions.' This implies when to reach for this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.