Fetch update history and audit trail for a ConfigSource to identify when and why changes were made, ensuring configuration transparency.
Get update history and audit trail for a ConfigSource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| configsource_id | Yes | ConfigSource ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description offers limited additional behavioral context. The phrase 'audit trail' hints at the output nature, but it does not discuss pagination, required permissions, or the shape of returned data. No contradictions with annotations.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it could include a bit more value without harming structure.
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?
No output schema exists and the description does not explain what the returned history/audit trail contains, how pagination parameters affect results, or how this tool relates to audit-log siblings. For a simple read tool this is a notable gap, as an agent must guess at the return format and use cases.
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 parameter already has a basic description. The description text adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's 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 clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (update history and audit trail for a ConfigSource), making the basic operation evident. It does not explicitly differentiate it from related tools like get_audit_logs or get_configsource, so it loses the top mark.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_configsource, get_audit_logs, or other audit-related siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.