Retrieve the most recent audit entries for Payables MCP, with an optional count to limit results (default 50). Use it to review recent payables activity.
Show the most recent audit entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | How many |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It implies a read operation via 'Show' but does not state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or whether it needs any permissions or has rate limits. Only the most basic behavioral hint is present.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and every part of the sentence contributes to meaning.
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?
The output schema covers return values and the schema fully documents the one parameter, so those areas need not be described. However, with no annotations, the description omits the safety profile and does not mention the default count or that it returns the most recent n entries. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'n' and its default of 50. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('audit entries'), plus a scope ('most recent'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools by resource domain, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative. A 4 is appropriate because the purpose is immediately legible without opening the schema.
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, no mention of prerequisites or context. It simply states a function, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.