publication_historyLists published config versions. Source bytes and channel effects are not restored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID from agents_list or agent_create. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| versions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / ConversationPolicy / descriptionPrevious value: -"Conversation-level rules, stored as JSONB on ``bot_configs.conversation_policy``.\n\nStored legacy keys, such as the retired Agent-wide ``mode``, are ignored on read.\nWho answers first is each channel's ``reply_mode``."New value: +"Conversation-level rules, stored as JSONB on ``bot_configs.conversation_policy``.\n\nWho answers first is each channel's ``reply_mode``."Input schema / properties / agent_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Agent ID from agents_list or agent_create."Output schema / $defs / PublicationSnapshot / properties / avatar_urlAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Avatar Url"
+}Output schema / $defs / PublicationSnapshot / properties / knowledge_source_namesAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Knowledge Source Names",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a scope caveat that source bytes and channel effects are not restored, but the phrasing is ambiguous and does not explain what the history actually contains or excludes in detail.
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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is useful as a caveat but could be clearer, so it is not maximally concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not fully clarify the tool's scope relative to the publication_restore and publication_review siblings, leaving an agent with some ambiguity about when this history read is appropriate.
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% and the single agent_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from agents_list or agent_create. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists published config versions. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings such as publication_restore, though it does not explicitly clarify whether 'config versions' means agent configuration snapshots or publication metadata.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use publication_history versus publication_restore, publication_review, or publication_publish. The statement that source bytes and channel effects are not restored implies a read-only boundary but does not route the agent to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.