Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_read_audit_log

Read the MODX MCP write-audit trail to review recent CMS changes, with optional filtering by action name and a configurable entry limit.

Instructions

Read the modxMCP write-audit trail (newest last). Optionally filter to one action.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "modx_read_audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax entries (default 100).
actionNoFilter to this action name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load; it discloses the ordering (newest last) and that this reads a write-audit trail (implying read-only). It does not state retention, pagination behavior, permissions, or entry shape, which matters for an unaudited 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the ordering detail, with the optional filter mentioned second. Nothing is padding, though the parenthetical ordering note is slightly awkward.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and filtering. The only gap is the shape of returned entries, which an agent would benefit from knowing since there's 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3: the schema already documents limit (default 100) and action. The description's mention of the optional single-action filter adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: read the modxMCP write-audit trail, distinguishing it from the sibling modx_read_error_log by naming the audit trail specifically. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from the error log, but the resource naming is concrete enough to select on.

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?

"Optionally filter to one action" implies when the filter is useful but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not against the closest sibling (modx_read_error_log for errors vs this for writes) or any prerequisities. Usage is implied, not directed.

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