Retrieve login authentication audit logs to monitor access attempts. Filter by username or view only failed or successful logins to identify security issues.
Get login/authentication audit logs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| username | No | Filter by username | |
| failed_only | No | Only failed logins | |
| success_only | No | Only successful logins |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the logs contain. It is consistent with annotations but does not enrich them.
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 entirely front-loaded and free of redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, containing no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must clarify what the tool returns, but it does not mention any details like the fields returned, default behavior (e.g., whether both successful and failed logs are returned by default), or pagination. Given the number of sibling audit tools, more context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing each parameter (limit, username, failed_only, success_only) with clear meanings. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'login/authentication audit logs', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings like get_audit_logs or get_api_token_audit, so it falls short of a 5.
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 other audit-related tools (e.g., get_audit_logs, get_change_audit). There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.