Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

datasets_chrome_extensions_history

Retrieve a Chrome Web Store item's change history by ID, filtered by date range and limit, to track changes in users, ratings, versions, and permissions.

Instructions

Get Chrome Web Store item history. Returns the change history of one Chrome Web Store item by id. A point is recorded only when a tracked field changed, with users, rating, version, permissions and the list of change_types. Narrow with from and to (YYYY-MM-DD); limit defaults to 365, max 1000.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesChrome Web Store item id
toNoInclusive end date, YYYY-MM-DD
fromNoInclusive start date, YYYY-MM-DD
limitNoMaximum points, default 365, max 1000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return semantics ('a point is recorded only when a tracked field changed') and the fields tracked, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and pagination beyond the `limit` cap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the return shape, then parameter narrowing. No filler, though the parameter sentence partly restates schema content that was not strictly needed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value story, and it does—listing the tracked fields (users, rating, version, permissions, change_types). Auth and failure modes are the only real gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's `from`/`to` and `limit` details duplicate the schema rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Chrome Web Store item history') and clarifies it returns the change history of ONE item keyed by `id`. It is more specific than the sibling datasets_chrome_extensions_changes but never explicitly differentiates itself from that tool, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 signals usage context by telling the agent how to narrow results with `from`/`to`, but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though `datasets_chrome_extensions_changes` is an obvious sibling the agent must choose between.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools