Skip to main content
Glama
uk-kd

operbots-mcp

by uk-kd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Журнал действий

audit_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve audit log entries for a case to see who changed flows, bots, roles, or permissions, including actions performed by access tokens. Supports filters by action, actor, limit, and offset.

Instructions

Кто и что менял в деле: правки, включения, удаления, выдачу прав. Отвечает на вопрос «кто это сделал» — в том числе про действия, совершённые токеном доступа: у таких записей указано, каким именно. Чтение в журнал не попадает. Требует права audit.view.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseNoДело: название или идентификатор. Если не указать, берётся дело по умолчанию, иначе последнее открытое в панели.
limitNoСколько записей вернуть, максимум 200. По умолчанию 50.
actionNoВид события, например flow.update, bot.delete, role.update. Без него — все виды.
offsetNoСколько записей пропустить.
actor_idNoАвтор из audit_filters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / action / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / actor_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Автор из audit_filters.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.14
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Сколько записей пропустить.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. Addedv0.1.13

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it lists the types of actions recorded, notes that token-performed actions identify the token, states that reads are not logged, and names the required audit.view permission.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose. There is some redundancy between 'who changed what' and 'answers who did this', but every sentence still contributes useful scope or permission information.

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?

Given that all parameters are documented in the schema and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is fairly complete: it includes content scope, token-action behavior, read exclusion, and the required permission. It does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists, though more detail on pagination or filtering could help.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific purpose: an audit journal showing who changed what in a case, including edits, enables/disables, deletions, and permission grants. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic list tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling audit_filters tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful context that the tool answers 'who did this' and that read operations are not logged, plus a required permission (audit.view). However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_filters, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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