agent_card_historyRead the sealed history of a domain's agent card: every version captured, when, and which skills appeared or disappeared between them. Nothing is fetched — use it before delegating work, to see since when an agent claims what it claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read' and 'Nothing is fetched.' It adds useful behavioral context: the history is 'sealed,' includes captured versions, and tracks skill appearances/disappearances. It does not go into auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only tool that is acceptable.
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 well-structured sentences: the first states the core action and result, and the second provides the use case. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (versions, timestamps, skill diffs) and when to use it. It could mention whether any filtering or pagination exists, but completeness is strong given the tool's simplicity.
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 the single 'domain' parameter described as 'e.g. example.com.' The description adds contextual framing ('a domain's agent card') but not additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the burden.
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 verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('the sealed history of a domain's agent card'), and what the result contains: every version, timestamps, and skill differences. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seal_agent_card or get_agent_passport, which imply writing or current-state reads rather than historical review.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'use it before delegating work, to see since when an agent claims what it claims.' It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.
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.