get_historyRetrieve paginated upload history across all connected social media profiles to review past posts and plan future content.
Paginated history of uploads across all profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the pagination behavior and cross-profile scope, but does not disclose ordering, return format, or any additional behavioral constraints beyond the schema's limit.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It efficiently states the core purpose and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks details about the returned history entries, ordering, or pagination mechanics. It does not explain what fields are available or how to interpret the data, leaving significant gaps for a caller.
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 explain the page and limit parameters. It only mentions 'Paginated' without defining what page and limit mean, their defaults, or how they interact. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Paginated history of uploads across all profiles' clearly states the verb (get history), resource (uploads), and scope (across all profiles). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_media (specific media) and get_status (job status) without ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_media or get_status. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond the bare statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.