Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DEX_MCP

DEX_MCP

Official
by teamviewer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

audit_logs_search

Find specific audit log entries by filtering on component, user, message, or time. Sort and paginate results to pinpoint security-related events.

Instructions

Search audit logs. Filterable/sortable by: Component, Comment, CreatedTime, Message, UserName, DetailMessage. Requires 'Read' on 'Security'.

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": "audit_logs_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipNoRecords to skip
takeNoRecords to return
filterNoOData-style filter, e.g. "Name eq 'X'"
sortByNoColumn to sort by
sortOrderNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement and enumerates filterable/sortable fields, but it does not cover pagination limits, default behavior, or failure modes for invalid filters. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action and field list are front-loaded, and the permission requirement appears in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with five optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: permission requirement and allowed fields. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape or content of the returned audit log entries, and pagination semantics remain implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% with only minimal descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by constraining which fields can be used in the filter and sort parameters, which the schema itself does not specify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the specific verb-resource phrase 'Search audit logs,' immediately identifying what the tool does. Listing the filterable/sortable fields adds precision and helps distinguish it from the sibling audit_logs_add.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the required permission (Read on Security), which is a clear precondition for use. It implies the tool is for searching/filtering rather than adding audit logs, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools