Inspect the immutable audit ledger, circuit breaker state, and runtime metrics to verify compliance and trace agent activity. Retrieve recent records with an optional limit.
Query the immutable structured audit ledger, circuit breaker state, and runtime metrics for compliance inspection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent audit records to retrieve (default: 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Query' plus 'immutable' ledger implies a non-mutating read, which is a useful safety signal, but there is no disclosure of auth/permission requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or how circuit breaker state and metrics are surfaced.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource set come first. It is efficiently sized, though it is single-sentence and offers no structural separation of the three data domains it queries.
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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should ideally sketch the shape of what is returned (ledger entries vs. breaker state vs. metrics) and ordering. It names the three sources but leaves the agent guessing how results are combined and ordered.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (count of recent records, default 20). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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?
States a specific verb ('Query') and three concrete resources (immutable structured audit ledger, circuit breaker state, runtime metrics) plus the intent (compliance inspection). This clearly differentiates it from the sentinel_safe_* and sentinel_policy_check siblings, which are operation-oriented rather than inspection-oriented, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The phrase 'for compliance inspection' implies the context of use, so the agent can infer this is the read path for audit/compliance queries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative (e.g. sentinel_policy_check) for policy evaluation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.