List a participant's temporal history
The participant's temporal rows across the directory/card/registration/SMP fact families, newest-first, cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Canonical `scheme::value` Peppol identifier. | |
| limit | No | Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination, and the specific fact families included, which is useful for the agent.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core action, the second adds scope, ordering, and pagination details. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description explains scope, ordering, and pagination. However, it does not describe the return structure (no output schema exists), which is a minor gap but not critical for a listing tool.
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%, with each parameter already described in detail. The description only adds behavioral context (cursor-paginated) rather than further parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline for well-documented schemas.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'participant's temporal history' with explicit scope (directory/card/registration/SMP fact families), ordering, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_participant_stats_history and list_participant_events.
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 provides clear context on what data is covered (temporal rows across specified fact families) and mentions cursor-paginated, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
