Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Whisper

by io.github.whisper-sec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

agents: history

whisper_agents_history
Read-only

The history operation on the Whisper control plane, served as CALL whisper.agents({op:'history', args:{...}}). Requires your Whisper API key. The identifier in the example is a placeholder for one of YOUR agents: list them with the "agents.list" skill and {"kind":"agents"}. Example call: {"skill":"agents.history","input":{"address":"2a04:2a01:f6d7:1ffe:a0be:ba8a:c355:bba1"}} Needs a linked Whisper account (OAuth) or your API key in the X-API-Key header.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "whisper_agents_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesArguments for this operation, as an object. The example passes {"address":"2a04:2a01:f6d7:1ffe:a0be:ba8a:c355:bba1"}.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesThe answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
columnsYesThe column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
statisticsNoWhat the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the burden is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: a Whisper API key or linked OAuth account is required, and the X-API-Key header path is spelled out. It omits what the history result contains or whether it is paginated/time-bounded, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence states the operation and call form up front, which is good, but the text then interleaves auth requirements, an identifier caveat, a raw example JSON, and a repeated auth note. Several sentences restate invocation mechanics and auth twice, so it is serviceable rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Authentication and identifier discovery are covered, but for a "history" query the description never characterizes what kind of records come back or any time-window semantics, leaving a genuine gap for an open-world lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines a bare "input" object, yet the description supplies a concrete example payload with an "address" key and explains that the identifier in the example is a placeholder for one of the caller's own agents. That meaningfully supplements an otherwise opaque nested parameter object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it is the "history operation on the Whisper control plane" and shows a sample call with an "address" argument, which hints at historical records for an IP address. But it never states what history is retrieved (DNS/hosting/ownership changes?) and gives no contrast with sibling tools like whisper_history, whisper_agents_logs, or whisper_agents_trace, so an agent cannot cleanly tell it apart.

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?

It gives a concrete discovery path (use "agents.list" with {"kind":"agents"} to find your agent identifier), which is real when-to-use-adjacent guidance. However there is no statement of when to choose this over whisper_history/whisper_agents_logs, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond authentication.

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

All Whisper toolsInspect
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.

Resources