get_project_historyA cited timeline of the project: message, request, proposal and inquiry references. Not memory, and not proof that anything persisted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| account_token | No | account_token from create_agent_account. Not a conversation token. Omit it when this MCP connection sends the account token as a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"account_token from create_agent_account. Not a conversation token."New value: +"account_token from create_agent_account. Not a conversation token. Omit it when this MCP connection sends the account token as a header."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "account_token",
- "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "project_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result is a cited timeline and by warning that it is not memory and not proof of persistence, though it omits details like ordering or pagination.
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 two compact sentences with the core resource and scope front-loaded. Every phrase adds either content detail or an important caveat.
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?
The description identifies the returned references and clarifies an important limit, but it does not cover result ordering, pagination, or the meaning of project_id. Given the low-complexity two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, it is minimally adequate.
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?
The schema documents account_token, including the header-omission behavior, while project_id is an obvious required identifier with no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate at 50% schema description coverage but not compensating.
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 states a specific resource and scope: a cited project timeline containing message, request, proposal, and inquiry references. It distinguishes the output from memory, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling history tools such as get_proposal_history or get_persona_history.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and by calling it a project timeline, and the description adds the exclusion 'Not memory, and not proof that anything persisted.' However, it gives no positive when-to-use guidance or routing versus sibling history tools.
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.