get_historyRetrieve a paginated history of uploads across all profiles to review past publishing activity and track posts page by page.
Paginated history of uploads across all profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | Items per page. The API pages in 10, 20, 50 or 100, so other values are rounded up to the next of those. Defaults to 10. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.2Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Items per page. The API pages in 10, 20, 50 or 100, so other values are rounded up to the next of those. Defaults to 10."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumPrevious value: -200New value: +100v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and span all profiles, but it does not disclose ordering, inclusion criteria for upload types, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. The scope and pagination behavior are stated immediately.
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-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and pagination nature. The main remaining gap is that 'uploads' is not further qualified, but the output schema can carry return-value details.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the page parameter has no schema description. The description says 'paginated' but does not explain page numbering, defaults, or how paging behaves; the limit parameter is already well documented in the schema.
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 states a specific resource and action: a paginated history of uploads. The scope phrase 'across all profiles' distinguishes it from profile-specific retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_media.
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 tool's intended use is implied by 'history of uploads,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools like get_media, get_post_analytics, or get_media_upload. It lacks when-not conditions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.