Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sac-tools

mcp-sac-tools

by pmankineni
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

sac_read_audit_data

Retrieve audit trail for a SAC model, showing who changed what data and when.

Instructions

Read audit/change log data for a model. Shows who changed what data and when.

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": {
      "modelId": "<modelId>"
    },
    "name": "sac_read_audit_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMax number of rows to return
skipNoNumber of rows to skip
filterNoOData $filter expression
modelIdYesThe model/provider ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Read', which implies safety, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency for a read tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no waste. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on the return structure. It only hints at 'who, what, when' but omits details like pagination, record format, or field names. Incomplete for a tool lacking output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it does not explain pagination parameters (top, skip) or filter syntax.

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 audit/change log data for a model, specifying it shows who changed what data and when. This distinguishes it from data-reading siblings like sac_read_fact_data and sac_read_master_data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for audit data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sac_export_audit_activities. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools