Retrieve the chronological audit history of review and resolution actions for a contradiction record to track how inconsistencies were handled.
Retrieves the chronological audit history of review and resolution actions performed on a contradiction record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contradictionId | Yes | The unique ID of the contradiction record |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are chronological and cover review/resolution actions, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or truncation behavior for what is presumably an unbounded audit log.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is retrieved and its ordering. Only minor gaps remain (log size/pagination expectations), which are not critical for correct invocation.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The unique ID of the contradiction record'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or source hints for the ID beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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 verb (retrieves) and resource (chronological audit history of review and resolution actions on a contradiction record). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_contradiction (current state) and review/resolve/dismiss_contradiction (mutations), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this to audit a contradiction's action trail, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the analogous get_claim_history sibling, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.