Gemral Edge

Get Claim Evolution History

get_claim_history

Inspect the complete chronological evolution chain (Promise Chain) of a specific corporate claim from inception to outcome. Shows initial statement, subsequent reaffirmations, revisions/delays, linked external evidence, and final verification outcome.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "claim_id": "<claim_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_claim_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim_id`	Yes	UUID identifier of the claim

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description is written entirely as passive inspection ('Inspect', 'Shows'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, leaving genuine ambiguity about whether invoking it mutates claim state. The description does add substantive content about what the chain contains (reaffirmations, revisions/delays, external evidence, final outcome), but it does not resolve the read/write question, nor mention permissions or behavior on unknown claim_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the enumerated chain contents following as supporting detail. Every clause contributes either scope or expected content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields, and its brief content list is enough to tell an agent what a Promise Chain is. The remaining gap is the unresolved read/write signal from the annotations, which the description does not address.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required claim_id documented as a UUID, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description only says 'a specific corporate claim' and adds no format, sourcing, or scoping detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: inspect the complete chronological evolution chain of one corporate claim, from inception to outcome. That framing (single-claim trajectory) is meaningfully distinct from list-oriented siblings like get_open_promises, get_overdue_promises, or search_management_promises. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (verify_claim) so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 is only implied by the phrase 'of a specific corporate claim' — an agent can infer this is the per-claim drill-down rather than a listing or verification tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. verify_claim for a single point-in-time check, get_open_promises for a portfolio view).

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

All Gemral Edge 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.