Skip to main content
Glama

Get Node History

get_node_history
Read-only

Reads the append-only position log directly, so an off_sequence node id a later flow edit dropped still returns its history. A node no one has moved off — including the start node, which stores no position rows of its own — comes back empty. Dict with node_id, count, and prospects array. count is how many prospects went through and moved on in total (independent of limit/offset, so the page count is ceil(count / limit)); prospects is the requested page, newest visit first, each {id, name, email, linkedin_url, provider_id, current_node_id, visited_at} — current_node_id is the node they rest on now, visited_at the ISO time they last held node_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax prospects returned per page, newest visit first (default 50, capped at 200).
offsetNoHow many of the newest-first prospects to skip. Page through a node with more than `limit` history by re-calling with offset 0, then `limit`, then `2*limit`, … until `offset >= count`.
node_idYesThe node whose history to read — a node id from get_campaign_flow.
agent_idYesID of the agent (campaign) to read.
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
      +}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "ID of the agent (campaign) to read.",
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "ID of the task (campaign) to read.",
      -  "type": "integer"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "task_id",
      -  "node_id"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "agent_id",
      +  "node_id"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that the read hits the append-only position log so dropped off_sequence node ids still resolve, and that nodes nobody moved off — including the start node, which stores no position rows — return empty. It also clarifies that count is total and independent of limit/offset, driving the pagination formula, which the annotation does not cover.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The summary block front-loads the core purpose, scope, and alternative routing, followed by a structured returns block. It is on the long side and repeats some schema-level detail, but nearly every sentence carries differentiating information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies a returns block enumerating the dict shape and every prospect field, plus empty-result and dropped-node edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning about how limit and offset interact with count (page count = ceil(count/limit)) and clarifies agent_id is not restricted to the in-context agent. That is more than the schema supplies for pagination behavior.

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?

It states a precise verb and resource — reading a Flow node's 'went through' history of prospects who held the position and moved off — and explicitly contrasts it with get_campaign_flow's live occupancy and query_prospects filtered on current_node_id. An agent can distinguish it from every nearby sibling without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives concrete question-shaped triggers ('who passed through the connect step', 'who has already been through step 2') and names the two alternatives with the condition that selects each ('for who rests on a node now, filter query_prospects on current_node_id'). It also states the tool accepts any of the user's campaigns, not just the agent in context.

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