Prints the project audit log, optionally filtered by item ID or timestamp, to review recorded changes and activity.
Print the audit log (optionally for one item, optionally since a timestamp).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Item id: sprint '1', task '1.2', subtask '1.2.3' | |
| since | No | ISO timestamp (e.g. 2026-10-17) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that output is a printed log and can be scoped by item or timestamp, but says nothing about ordering, volume, truncation, or what each log entry contains — useful gaps for a log tool with no output schema.
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 with the resource stated first and the two optionality notes parenthesized after it. No padding, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the routing context an agent would want.
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?
Two optional parameters and an annotation mean the description doesn't need to carry much, but for a log-retrieval tool it omits scope defaults (all items when id is absent), ordering, and rough output shape. Adequate to invoke, not enough to predict the result.
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%, so both id (with its sprint/task/subtask format) and since (ISO timestamp) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates them at a high level but adds no format or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already gives. 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?
Specific verb ("Print") plus resource ("audit log") makes the operation immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from list/show/stats siblings by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use alternatively, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated at the top level.
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 parenthetical describes parameter options, not when to choose this tool over tasks_show or tasks_stats. There is no statement of when an audit log is preferable to inspecting an item directly, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.