entry_historyRetrieve the audit trail for a farm notebook entry: see who created, edited, or deleted it and when, field by field.
Who created, edited or deleted a notebook entry and when, field by field (audit trail).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | Entry id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the returned content as a field-by-field audit trail including who, when, and what action occurred.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope.
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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the audit trail contains. It could be slightly richer about return format or pagination, but overall it covers the essentials.
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% and the single parameter entry_id is documented in the schema as 'Entry id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
Description states a clear purpose: retrieve audit trail of a notebook entry, specifying who, when, and field-by-field changes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entries and record_entry by focusing on history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'audit trail' implies the tool is for viewing historical changes, but no alternatives or conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.