get_file_historyIdentify which AI coding sessions discussed a given file path across agents. Use it to trace file-related conversations and recover prior context.
某文件路径被哪些会话讨论过（跨 agent）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | 项目根绝对路径。仅当服务端提示 unresolved_project（多项目/未自动识别）时选择传此参；传一次后本连接记住 | |
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cross-agent scope, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, permission requirements, whether missing paths return empty results, or what the response looks like.
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 compact sentence with no wasted wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is terse, but the terseness is a specification issue rather than a conciseness issue.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain return behavior and practical usage. It identifies the conceptual result (sessions that discussed the file), but omits ordering, pagination, project-resolution behavior, and response shape.
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 50%: the 'project' parameter has a useful schema description, while 'file_path' has none. The description implies that 'file_path' is the file being queried, but adds no format or path-resolution details beyond that. This is adequate but not compensating further for the missing schema description.
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 states a specific query: which sessions discussed a given file path. The parenthetical '跨 agent' adds useful scope by indicating cross-agent history, distinguishing it from a generic session search. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as search_sessions, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent can infer that it is useful when investigating file discussion history, but there is no routing guidance among the many session-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.