get_root_historyRead previous ROOT holders, challenge dates, takeover artifacts, and durations. No bearer token is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of ROOT claims to return, newest first. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| history | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that no bearer token is required, which directly affects how an agent should invoke the tool. It does not contradict the read-only hint.
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 short, purposeful sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the auth note earns its place by saving an agent from attempting unnecessary authentication.
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?
For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over ROOT-related siblings, but the clear purpose, auth note, and structured metadata cover most agent needs.
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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully described in the schema with type, default, bounds, and example, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the 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 states a specific action ('Read') on a clearly bounded resource ('previous ROOT holders, challenge dates, takeover artifacts, and durations'). This directly conveys what the tool returns and distinguishes it from ROOT-related siblings like get_root_signing_payload or claim_root.
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 phrase 'Read previous ROOT...' implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The only additional usage-related note, 'No bearer token is required,' is helpful but does not guide tool selection among siblings.
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.
Each tool corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.