Retrieve your account's generation history, including drafts with status, type, vid, cover, and errors, and filter by miniAppType.
What was generated in this account: drafts with status, type, vid, cover, errors. miniAppTypes: 1 refresh, 2 i2v, 3 t2v, 5 hpi, 6 try-on, 7 dubbing, 9 avatar, 11 image, 13 r2v.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| miniAppTypes | No |
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 discloses that the tool returns drafts with status, type, vid, cover, errors, and explains miniAppTypes numeric codes. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether results are read-only, or any side effects. The miniAppTypes mapping is useful behavioral context but incomplete.
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 compact and front-loads the main purpose. The miniAppTypes mapping is dense but useful. However, the structure is a bit run-on and could be clearer with separation between the purpose statement and the parameter mapping.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return format beyond listing fields, doesn't mention pagination defaults, doesn't clarify whether miniAppTypes is a filter or a response field, and doesn't provide usage context. The miniAppTypes mapping is helpful but the overall picture is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the miniAppTypes parameter values (1 refresh, 2 i2v, etc.), which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain limit or offset semantics beyond what the schema names imply. The miniAppTypes explanation is the key added value.
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 specific verb and resource: 'What was generated in this account' with drafts including status, type, vid, cover, errors. It clearly identifies this as a history/listing tool for generated content. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like sym_log or sym_status, but the resource (generated drafts) is distinct enough.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for viewing generation history, but doesn't mention when to prefer sym_log or sym_status. The miniAppTypes mapping provides some context for filtering but no usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.