Skip to main content
Glama

query_task_history

Retrieve completed, abandoned, or deleted tasks with flexible filters including date, project, tags, and more. Find specific historical tasks using fine-grained search parameters.

Instructions

Query completed, abandoned, or deleted task history with the same fine filters.

[Category: Query & Search]  [Auth: V2]
[Related: get_completed_tasks, get_deleted_tasks, query_tasks]
Multi-value filters accept either a list or a single string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
history_sourceYes
from_dateNo
to_dateNo
project_idsNo
project_namesNo
folder_idsNo
folder_namesNo
tagsNo
tag_modeNoany
text_queryNo
keyword_modeNoany
regexNo
exclude_regexNo
search_fieldsNo
due_fromNo
due_toNo
start_fromNo
start_toNo
modified_fromNo
modified_toNo
created_fromNo
created_toNo
time_fromNo
time_toNo
timed_onlyNo
all_dayNo
min_priorityNo
prioritiesNo
has_remindersNo
is_recurringNo
has_checklistNo
parent_onlyNo
subtasks_onlyNo
limitNo
sort_byNocompletedTime
descendingNo
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries all burden. It mentions history types but omits read-only nature, auth details beyond 'Auth: V2', rate limits, or behavior with large result sets.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose, includes category and auth tags. One useful note about multi-value filters. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has 36 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain return format, pagination, or provide examples, making it severely incomplete for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning except that multi-value filters accept list or string. Given 36 parameters, this is insufficient.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool queries completed, abandoned, or deleted task history, using 'same fine filters'. It names related tools but does not explicitly contrast them, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 description implies usage for history queries and notes multi-value filter behavior, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_completed_tasks or query_tasks.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KpihX/tick-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server