Claude Project History MCP Server

by MatthewDegtyar

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

List Decisions

cph_decision_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a summary of decisions for a workflow, with optional tag filtering.

Instructions

List decisions for a workflow. Returns summary view only.

Call this when user explicitly asks to see decisions. session_init surfaces relevant ones automatically.

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "cph_decision_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workflow_id`	Yes
`tag`	No	Filter by tag (partial match)
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns only a summary view, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the safety profile is well-covered by annotations.

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 that front-load the purpose and then provide usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description gives clear usage context, it omits details about pagination (limit/offset), the meaning of 'summary view', and the required workflow_id. Given the lack of output schema and low schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter and return information.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the tag parameter has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter documentation, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The purpose of limit, offset, and the format of workflow_id are not explained.

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 clearly states the tool lists decisions for a workflow, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that session_init handles automatic surfacing, and there are separate tools for getting a single decision (cph_decision_get) and searching (cph_decision_search).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to call this tool: when the user explicitly asks to see decisions. It also directs agents away from this tool when session_init is appropriate, which surfaces relevant decisions automatically. This provides clear alternatives and context.

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