SINT Protocol

sint__audit

Query the SINT Protocol evidence ledger to review recent security decisions, audit trails, and policy enforcement events for compliance verification.

Instructions

Query the SINT evidence ledger for recent decisions and events

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": "sint__audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max events to return (default: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Query' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'recent' events. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (querying an evidence ledger), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and scope but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('SINT evidence ledger'), and specifies the scope ('for recent decisions and events'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this read operation from siblings like 'sint__list_delegations' or 'sint__pending', which might also retrieve information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'sint__list_delegations', 'sint__pending', and 'sint__status' that might retrieve related information, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.