Retrieve Android call history via KDE Connect with configurable filters for time range, result limit, and missed-only calls. Enables LLM agents to access call logs from connected devices.
Historial de llamadas. only_missed=True para perdidas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| only_missed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'call history' and a parameter hint, but does not mention read-only nature, pagination, ordering, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.
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 extremely terse: two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core concept. It sacrifices detail for brevity, but given the tool's simplicity, it is appropriately sized, though borderline on under-specification.
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?
Given there is an output schema (though not shown), return values may be covered, but the description lacks context for the tool's usage scope, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. An agent would still be unsure how to set days or limit effectively.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'only_missed' (for missed calls) but leaves 'days' and 'limit' without any meaning or usage examples. It partially compensates but is insufficient for two of the three parameters.
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 identifies the resource: 'Historial de llamadas' (call history). It implies a retrieval action, but does not explicitly state a verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the sibling list shows no overlapping resource, so the purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer the tool's function.
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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over list_devices, get_events, or other siblings. The only hint is about parameter usage, not selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.