Skip to main content
Glama

meta-agent-tools

by com.agentalog
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Listing history

listing_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Timeline of the listing's repository: last events (abandono = no push for 12 months, sumiu, renomeado, readme_mudou, manifesto_mudou), newest first; empty when nothing changed since the series began. The listing page carries the same list as historico; updates may be cached for up to 15 minutes. An empty list means no change since the series began — the listing still exists. Stale means no push for 12 months. Reading this endpoint does not refresh the record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesListing ID, from `Anuncio.id`.
api_passNoMAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.
retry_keyNoOptional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / retry_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: it defines cache freshness (up to 15 minutes), explains empty-list semantics, defines stale as no push for 12 months, and clarifies that reading the endpoint does not refresh the record. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only endpoint.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded and informative, but it repeats key ideas: 'no push for 12 months' is stated both for 'abandono' and again as the definition of stale, and the empty-list meaning is stated twice. These redundant sentences cost conciseness without adding new 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?

For a read-only endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives strong context on event types, ordering, empty results, caching, and stale semantics. It omits the internal structure of each timeline event, but the core behavior an agent needs is present.

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 the input schema already documents id, api_pass, and retry_key. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, making the baseline 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 clearly states the resource and output: a timeline of the listing repository's last events, with event types named and ordering specified. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_listing or listing_status, so it falls short of a 5 under the rubric's sibling-differentiation requirement.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement: an agent can infer that this tool retrieves a listing's repository history. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like get_listing or listing_status, and no stated exclusions.

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

All meta-agent-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources