get_historyRetrieve a document's hash-chained audit history to verify every signing step, including time, actor, IP address, and whether the chain remains intact.
The hash-chained history of a document: every step with time, who and IP address, and whether the chain is intact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the openWorldHint annotation covers external access. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that the history is hash-chained, includes per-step timestamps and IPs, and reports whether the chain is intact. It does not discuss pagination or error behavior, but the core behavioral disclosure is strong.
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 that front-loads the key concept: hash-chained document history. Every clause contributes useful information about what the history contains and how integrity is reported.
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?
For a read-only, single-parameter history lookup with no output schema, the description does well by enumerating the returned information: steps, time, actor, IP address, and chain integrity. It could further clarify error behavior or the meaning of the id parameter, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
There is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema itself does not explain what the parameter represents. The description's phrase 'history of a document' implicitly indicates that the id identifies a document, which is enough to interpret the sole parameter, but it adds no format or constraint details beyond that.
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 specifies that this tool retrieves a document's hash-chained history, including timestamps, actors, IPs, and chain integrity. This is a specific resource and return shape, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_document or verify_pdf.
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 implies an audit or compliance use case through its mention of hash chains and IP addresses, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document or verify_pdf. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.