Skip to main content
Glama
Koodattu

wow-addon-api-mcp

by Koodattu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_api_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track a specific World of Warcraft AddOn API across patches. Select a game channel and exact API name to see where it appeared, disappeared, or changed structure between versions.

Instructions

Show the patches in the selected channel where one exact API appeared, disappeared, or changed structure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional result category
nameYesExact full API or object name
channelYesGame channel; never inferred from a version number
to_versionNoOptional last patch; defaults to latest in the selected channel
from_versionNoOptional first patch; defaults to the oldest bundled patch in the selected channel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Game channel; never inferred from a version number",
+  "enum": [
+    "retail",
+    "forever"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / from_version / description
      Previous value: -"Optional first patch; defaults to the oldest bundled retail patch"New value: +"Optional first patch; defaults to the oldest bundled patch in the selected channel"
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_version / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / to_version / description
      Previous value: -"Optional last patch; defaults to latest"New value: +"Optional last patch; defaults to latest in the selected channel"
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_version / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "channel"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful output-scoping context by describing the lifecycle events covered, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any other behavioral edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly worded sentence conveys the tool's core behavior without any filler. The action, resource, scope, and event types are all front-loaded and each clause carries meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only history tool with fully described parameters and safe annotations, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by noting what the returned patch entries look like or explicitly mentioning optional filters, but the essentials for selecting and calling the tool are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description reinforces that 'name' is the exact API name and 'channel' is the selected channel, but it adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('patches'), and a precise scope ('in the selected channel'). It also identifies the exact API lifecycle events that define the tool's behavior, making it easy to distinguish from sibling lookup and diff tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: use this tool to find patches where a specific API appeared, disappeared, or changed structure. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like compare_api or diff_versions, nor does it mention any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools