Retrieve past quality assurance run records to track pixel-art consistency issues and verify fixes across assets. Filter by asset ID to isolate a specific asset's history.
Get QA run history. Optionally filter by asset ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | No | Filter history by asset ID (omit for all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a simple read operation but does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, history scope, or possible side effects. 'Get' implies read-only behavior but this is not explicit.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.
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?
The operation is simple and the sole parameter is documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The agent is left without any knowledge of what a QA run history entry contains, how results are ordered, or whether any limits apply. A short mention of returned fields or default behavior would make the description complete.
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?
The input schema already fully documents asset_id with 'Filter history by asset ID (omit for all)', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'Optionally filter by asset ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific action and resource: 'Get QA run history'. The verb 'Get' and resource are clear, giving an agent a basic understanding of the tool. However, it does not distinguish this from other history-related siblings like art.asset.history or art.memory.get_style_history.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.qa.asset or art.asset.history. The only usage signal is the optional asset_id filter, which is parameter information rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.