Whisper

history

whisper_history

Read-only

Historical records for an indicator (incl. whois/bgp history). Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"history","input":"example.com"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The indicator to look up: a domain, an IP address, an ASN or a file hash. The example passes example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes	The 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.
`columns`	Yes	The 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.
`statistics`	No	What the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "A tabular graph answer: the column names, the rows keyed by them, and the cost.",
+  "properties": {
+    "columns": {
+      "description": "The 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.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "description": "The 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.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "statistics": {
+      "description": "What the query cost.",
+      "properties": {
+        "executionTimeMs": {
+          "description": "Milliseconds the graph spent answering.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "rowCount": {
+          "description": "How many rows came back.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "rowCount"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "columns",
+    "rows"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that no API key is required and that the data is historical rather than current. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the access note and a concrete example call. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, a provided output schema, and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, what input it needs, and that no API key is required.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'input' parameter with a clear description of accepted indicator types (domain, IP, ASN, file hash). The tool description adds little beyond an example call, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Historical records for an indicator' and specifies the scope with '(incl. whois/bgp history)'. This distinguishes it from real-time lookup tools like whisper_rdap or whisper_lookupTlsFingerprint, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

The description implies usage for historical lookups and explicitly notes that it 'Answers without an API key', which is a useful access condition. However, it does not say when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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

All Whisper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.