cf_search_historyGet user's search history. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort order | |
| limit | No | Items per page | |
| query | No | Filter by search query text | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the auth requirement, which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 'Requires authentication' is a necessary caveat and earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description might need to explain return values, but 'search history' implies a list of searches. With 5 optional filter/pagination parameters, the description doesn't mention these capabilities, though the schema covers them. Adequate but minimal.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra credit.
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 clearly states 'Get user's search history' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like cf_popular_searches (aggregated searches) and cf_search_offers (product searches), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The only additional context is 'Requires authentication', which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. No mention of when to prefer this over popular searches or other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.