Retrieve configuration change audit logs from LogicMonitor, filtering by change type, resource type, and result limit to track modifications and support compliance.
Get configuration change audit logs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| change_type | No | Filter by change type | |
| resource_type | No | Filter by resource type |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, date range filtering, or whether the logs are system-wide. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal value.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from a mention of the filtering parameters to save the agent from opening the schema.
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?
Given that the tool has no output schema, the description should have explained what the returned audit log entries look like or how to use the filters, but it does not. However, the parameters are simple and the annotations cover safety, so it is adequate for a simple read operation, though not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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%, so each of the three parameters (limit, change_type, resource_type) is already documented with concise descriptions. The overall description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, which is exactly the baseline for full coverage.
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 clear verb ('Get'), resource ('configuration change audit logs') and implies a read operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_audit_logs, get_api_token_audit, and get_login_audit by specifying 'configuration change' specifically, though it could be more explicit about the difference.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the several other audit-related sibling tools (get_audit_logs, get_api_token_audit, get_login_audit). The description does not state any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.