list_historyRetrieve recent image generation and editing history with pagination and optional tool filtering to review past outputs.
List recent generation history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum entries to return (default: 20) | |
| offset | No | Skip this many entries (for pagination) | |
| tool_filter | No | Filter by tool name (generate_image, edit_image, etc.) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states ordering (newest first?), whether history is scoped per user/session/workspace, how far back 'recent' reaches, or that the call is non-destructive — only the verb 'List' weakly implies read-only.
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?
One short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but at this length the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no second sentence to establish scope or ordering.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with zero annotations the description should at least pin down ordering and history scope. Neither is present, leaving the agent to infer key behavior before calling.
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 100%, so limit, offset, and tool_filter are already fully documented with defaults (including the listed tool names). The description adds nothing to parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('generation history'), plus a scope hint ('recent'), so the agent knows this is a read-only listing of past generations. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_generation_details, or clarify that history spans the image tools listed as siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_generation_details (single-entry lookup) or the individual generation tools. The only implied usage is 'recent', with no statement of recency window or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.