get_audit_resultRetrieve the current status, score, findings, privacy state, and evidence URL for an audit UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_id | Yes | Audit UUID returned by audit_app |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| audit_id | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes | ||
| visibility | Yes | ||
| receipt_url | Yes | ||
| completed_at | Yes | ||
| requested_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "audit_id": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "completed_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "findings": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "evidence": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxPoints": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "points": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "pass",
+ "warn",
+ "fail",
+ "not-applicable"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "status",
+ "points",
+ "maxPoints",
+ "evidence",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "hostname": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "receipt_url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "requested_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "queued",
+ "running",
+ "completed",
+ "failed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "visibility": {
+ "enum": [
+ "public",
+ "unlisted-noindex"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "audit_id",
+ "status",
+ "score",
+ "hostname",
+ "findings",
+ "receipt_url",
+ "visibility",
+ "requested_at",
+ "completed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe, idempotent read behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (status, score, etc.), which is not detailed in annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, error cases, or latency, but given the annotations, the bar is lower and the added context is sufficient.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve') and resource, then lists the specific fields. Every word contributes to clarity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, idempotent read), an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return format. It covers all key fields returned. Minor omission: no statement about what happens if the audit UUID does not exist, but for a retrieval tool with idempotentHint, this is acceptable.
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% for the single parameter audit_id, with a schema description stating 'Audit UUID returned by audit_app'. The tool description merely reiterates 'for an audit UUID', adding minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter adequately.
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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('audit result for an audit UUID'). It lists the exact data fields returned (status, score, findings, privacy state, evidence URL), leaving no ambiguity. Sibling tools like audit_app (initiates audit) and create_distribution_plan are distinct, so the purpose is well differentiated.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be called after a successful audit_app invocation or suggest conditions for using get_customer_zero_evidence instead. The agent must infer usage from context signals.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: queueing an audit, retrieving results, creating a remediation plan, and fetching specific evidence. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: audit_app, create_distribution_plan, get_audit_result, get_customer_zero_evidence. The pattern is predictable and uniform.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of auditing and remediation planning. Each tool serves a necessary function without excess or deficiency.
The tools cover the core workflow: queue audit, retrieve result, create plan, and get evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list or delete for audits), but the essential operations are present.