EaseWeb

History of changes

list_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

The versions of a presentation you may edit, newest first: number, who made it (person and agent), when, and what changed. Changes of one author in a row within 10 minutes are one version. Those who may only read a presentation do not see its history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/).
`limit`	No	At most this many (default 50).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`versions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "versions": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "agent": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "author": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "changes": {
+            "description": "What changed in this version.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "number": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "number"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "versions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real semantics beyond them: the newest-first ordering, the non-obvious aggregation rule (one author's consecutive changes within 10 minutes collapse to a single version), and the permission-based visibility rule. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, front-loaded with the resource and its ordering. There is no filler; the only slight cost is that the opening sentence is dense with the returned-field list.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and the description still covers ordering, the version-grouping rule, and the visibility constraint. For a two-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination behavior around limit is left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both slug and limit fully documented in the schema (including the default of 50). The description adds no extra meaning to either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and its scope: versions of a presentation the caller may edit, returned newest first, with the fields it exposes (number, author, timestamp, diff). It is clear and distinguishable, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings get_version and restore_version, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it tells you the history is only visible to those who can edit, which implicitly routes read-only users away. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_version (single version) or restore_version (revert), so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All EaseWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?