Skip to main content
Glama
robertsmieja

xmatters-mcp

by robertsmieja
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get event audit information

xmatters_get_event_audit_information
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve event audit information by event ID, with filters for audit type and sort order, to track changes and actions on xMatters events.

Instructions

Get event audit information. GET /api/xm/1/audits. Body fields: none. Reference: https://help.xmatters.com/xmapi/#get-event-audit-information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesAPI query parameters; arrays are comma-joined. Documented names: eventId, auditType, sortOrder. Pagination is explicit using offset and limit; results are not automatically combined.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the endpoint and 'Body fields: none' but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination (which is only in the schema description) or what data is returned. For a read-only operation with strong annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is minimal and front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint and body info. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple GET with no output schema, the description combined with annotations and schema is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain what audit information is returned or any formatting specifics, which could be expected given no 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 description coverage is 100% as the query object includes a description of supported parameters (eventId, auditType, sortOrder) and pagination behavior. The tool description adds no parameter context, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the operation: 'Get event audit information' and includes the exact API endpoint. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_events or get_event_annotations.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or when to prefer another tool. The reference link is helpful but doesn't substitute for explicit usage direction.

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