name_historyFetch the full name-change history for a Minecraft account by UUID; returns a list of past usernames and the timestamps when each was adopted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Historical name changes for the player |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "uuid": "069a79f4-44e9-405c-b647-db3f2e3f5e88"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Historical name changes for the player",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "changedToAt": {
+ "description": "Epoch milliseconds when name was changed to this",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Username",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a list of past usernames and timestamps, which is return-value context rather than behavioral nuance. It does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond 'by UUID'.
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 one sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Fetch'), states the resource, input, and output summary in a compact manner. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given a single parameter, an output schema, and a read-only operation, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and expected return without needing additional context. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the uuid parameter. The phrase 'by UUID' clarifies that the uuid parameter is the Minecraft account UUID, adding essential meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not specify format (e.g., dashed vs. undashed), but for a single parameter, this is sufficient.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as the full name-change history for a Minecraft account, filtered by UUID. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like username_to_uuid which map usernames to UUIDs, and username_to_uuid_at which look up UUIDs at a specific time.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving name-change history, implying its use case without ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is so specific that an agent can infer the appropriate usage. There are no exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.