Retrieve API token usage audit logs to monitor access and activity. Filter by token ID and limit results for targeted analysis.
Get API token usage audit logs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| token_id | No | Filter by API token ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name — no mention of result scoping, pagination, date handling, or what the audit logs actually contain.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover the read-only behavior. However, the description leaves the relationship to sibling audit tools unclear, and there is no output schema to clarify what the returned audit logs look like.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both limit and token_id already documented. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API token usage audit logs'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_audit_logs, get_login_audit, and get_change_audit by scoping to API token usage.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many audit-related siblings (get_audit_logs, get_login_audit, get_change_audit). There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or the appropriate context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.