Get the status history of a dataset (e.g. its enrichment progress over time).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| dataset_id | Yes | The dataset ID to inspect. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly labels the operation as retrieval of history (read-only implication), but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure beyond the mention of status history.
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, front-loaded sentence of 15 words with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and an example.
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 tool has few parameters and an output schema (not shown but present). The description adequately covers the input semantics and return nature. Minor gap: could explicitly mention that the output is a list of status events, but output schema likely explains that.
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 coverage is 100%: both parameters (api_key and dataset_id) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get the status history') and the resource ('a dataset'), with a concrete example ('enrichment progress over time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_dataset' (current state) and 'list_datasets' (list metadata).
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?
The description implies usage for monitoring historical status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions to avoid. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.