Skip to main content
Glama

search_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the accepted proposals of a project by text in their rationale and evidence: why something changed, what was delivered, what failed. Use it for anything no longer in the documents. Returns ids, dates, excerpts and documents, newest first; read_change then gives the full text and diff. Omit q to list them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "search_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
limitNo
offsetNo
project_idYes
document_idNo
result_offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results include ids, dates, excerpts and documents, are ordered newest first, and can be expanded via read_change.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds usage, return behavior, follow-up tooling, and the omit-q case in a compact sequence. The explanatory examples earn their space and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It is reasonably complete about what the tool searches and returns, and annotations cover safety. However, with six parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully document filtering or pagination parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It clarifies q's search scope and the omit-q listing behavior, but leaves limit, offset, document_id and result_offset unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching a project's accepted proposals by text in their rationale and evidence. It also clarifies the content domain (why something changed, delivered, failed) and distinguishes historical material from current documents.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage condition: use it for anything no longer in the documents, and omit q to list items. It also points to read_change for full text and diff, but does not explicitly name search_documents or list_changes as alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources