Get history
get_historyRead-onlyIdempotent
List the ISO-8601 timestamps of a model's committed mutations (most recent 100).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The model id. |
valem
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavior details: it lists timestamps of committed mutations, limited to 100, in ISO-8601 format. This is useful, but it does not clarify ordering (e.g., most recent first) or explicitly state that uncommitted mutations are excluded (though 'committed' implies it).
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and delivers the key constraints (ISO-8601 timestamps, limit of 100) efficiently. No extraneous words or redundant information; it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (timestamps) and its limit. The annotations cover side effects, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call it.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', described simply as 'The model id.' The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'timestamps of committed mutations', and specifies the limit (100) and format (ISO-8601). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_state (current state) or get_audit (audit trail) by focusing specifically on mutation history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_audit or get_state. There is no mention of exclusions, conditions, or a preference among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_audit explicitly subsumes get_history and explain, and get_state with paths overlaps get_field, creating minor selection ambiguity. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still reach for the wrong getter.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming is overwhelmingly consistent: snake_case with verb_noun structure and coherent get_/create_/delete_ clusters. Minor deviations like bare verbs (mutate, explain, restore, snapshot) and eval instead of evaluate prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count3/5
27 tools is above the comfortable range and feels heavy, especially with several overlapping audit/state getters that could be consolidated. That said, the domain is broad enough that the count is defensible, so it is heavy but not chaotic.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full model lifecycle well: create, validate, test, mutate, evolve, read, delete, plus snapshot/restore, audit, blobs, views, library, and expression evaluation. Minor gaps like explicit export/import or separate view-management tools are workable around.