Retrieve conversion history for a Targetprocess card by its current ID, returning its current ID if converted and all previous IDs from which it was converted.
Type conversions of a card (e.g. a bug converted to a user story): the id it has now if it was converted, and the ids it was converted from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the output shape (current id and source ids), but does not say what happens when a card has no conversions or whether the input id can be either a current or original id.
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 sentence with no filler, and the key resource and example are front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly awkward, but every part earns its place in explaining what the tool returns.
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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the main output semantics and gives a clarifying example. However, it leaves ambiguity around the direction of lookup and omits behavior for non-converted cards, which matters given there is no output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the operation concerns 'a card,' implying the id parameter is a card id, but it does not explicitly state the allowed id formats or whether the id should be the current or original form after conversion. Partial compensation for a single simple parameter.
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 identifies the resource as 'type conversions of a card' with a concrete example (bug converted to a user story), and specifies what the tool returns: the current id and the originating ids. The verb 'read' is only in the tool name, not the description, but the output semantics make the purpose clear.
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 this tool is for looking up conversion history for a card, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as read_history or read_relations. An agent would have to infer the intended scenario from the resource name and example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.