Datacron

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get note operation history

get_note_history

Read-only

Retrieve write receipts and committed operation metadata for a note by request_id, without reading content or modifying the journal.

Instructions

Filter by request_id to retrieve an ordinary-write receipt. List committed operation metadata for one note without reading history content or modifying the journal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`limit`	No
`request_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5Sep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Request Id"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description usefully adds that it returns committed operation metadata, avoids reading history content, and does not modify the journal. No contradiction with 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The most important filtering behavior is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety behavior. The description provides the core semantic context needed to call it correctly; the only notable gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which is optional and low-risk due to its default value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 explains that request_id filters for an ordinary-write receipt and that the call is scoped to one note, but it does not explain the limit parameter or its behavior. This is partial compensation, not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List committed operation metadata for one note.' It also distinguishes itself from content-reading tools by adding 'without reading history content,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates when the tool is relevant ('Filter by request_id to retrieve an ordinary-write receipt') and states what it does not do ('without reading history content or modifying the journal'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is easy to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.