Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude Project History MCP Server

Claude Project History MCP Server

by MatthewDegtyar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Decision

cph_decision_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a decision's full details, rationale, and alternatives by providing its unique identifier.

Instructions

Get full details of a single decision including rationale and alternatives.

Use after cph_decision_search returns relevant IDs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "decision_id": "<decision_id>"
    },
    "name": "cph_decision_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decision_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns 'rationale and alternatives', which is useful but does not detail response structure or error behavior, which is relevant given no output schema.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or missing essential information.

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 simple get tool with comprehensive annotations, the description adds the return content and usage trigger. It lacks mention of error cases or response format, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explicitly describe the decision_id parameter, but the context of using it after search implies its purpose. This partial compensation yields a score of 3.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single decision', and specifies the content includes 'rationale and alternatives', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It directly advises to use after cph_decision_search returns IDs, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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