retrieveAssignmentsAuditsListList history about your assignments (audit) - List and filters the history about your assignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| tagId | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| changedBy | No | ||
| requestId | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| resourceId | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that it can 'filter' history, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, required headers beyond the schema, or the format of returned data. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 consists of two sentences that are nearly identical: 'List history about your assignments (audit)' and 'List and filters the history about your assignments.' This repetition wastes words without adding information. The second sentence only introduces 'filters' but otherwise repeats the first, so it does not earn its place.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the response structure or filtering semantics, the description is critically incomplete. An agent would have difficulty understanding what the history entries contain, how filters affect results, or what the return value looks like, making the tool much harder to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions 'filters' generically but provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters (e.g., page, size, tagId, startDate, endDate). The agent must rely solely on the raw schema, which lacks semantic meaning, so the description fails to compensate.
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 tool lists audit history for assignments, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retrieveAssignmentList by specifying 'history (audit)'. However, it is repetitive, saying the same thing twice, which slightly detracts from clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling audit list tools (e.g., retrieveInstancesAuditsList, retrieveDomainsAuditsList). There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.