Read real HTTP observations of Guardian's own test target from the last 24 hours, including sample size, availability, and latency.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "live_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: this is a read of actual HTTP observations (not synthetic or cached summaries), bounded to a 24-hour window, and it reports sample size, availability, and latency. Gaps remain around data freshness/refresh cadence and what happens when no observations exist in the window.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb, the data source, the time scope, and the returned fields in that order. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does well by naming the returned metrics, but it stops short of routing guidance among three similarly named siblings and says nothing about empty-result or failure behavior. Adequate, with clear gaps.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The mention of the fixed 24-hour window usefully confirms that the time range is not caller-configurable.
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?
Specific verb and resource: "Read real HTTP observations of Guardian's own test target" scoped to "the last 24 hours", plus the metrics returned. The word "real" and "own test target" implicitly distinguish it from the demo-oriented sibling demo_history, but that alternative is never named, so the 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the 24-hour window suggests this is the historical counterpart to a live check (check_live), and "real" vs demo implies demo_history covers the demo target. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over its siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.