Skip to main content
Glama

get_recent_prompts

Retrieve recent user prompts from LLM sessions to review study history, analyze question types, and track learning progress for metacognitive reflection.

Instructions

최근 며칠간의 질문들을 조회합니다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo조회할 일수 (기본값: 7)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the `get_recent_prompts` tool in `src/server.ts`. It takes an optional `days` argument and returns a summary of prompts stored in the last N days.
      "get_recent_prompts",
      "최근 며칠간의 질문들을 조회합니다.",
      {
        days: z.number().optional().describe("조회할 일수 (기본값: 7)"),
      },
      async ({ days = 7 }) => {
        ensureDirectories();
        const results: { date: string; count: number }[] = [];
    
        for (let i = 0; i < days; i++) {
          const date = new Date();
          date.setDate(date.getDate() - i);
          const dateStr = date.toISOString().split("T")[0];
          const prompts = loadPrompts(dateStr);
          if (prompts.length > 0) {
            results.push({ date: dateStr, count: prompts.length });
          }
        }
    
        if (results.length === 0) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: `최근 ${days}일간 저장된 질문이 없습니다.` }],
          };
        }
    
        const list = results
          .map((r) => `${r.date}: ${r.count}개 질문`)
          .join("\n");
    
        const total = results.reduce((sum, r) => sum + r.count, 0);
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: `최근 ${days}일간 학습 기록\n\n${list}\n\n총 ${total}개 질문` }],
        };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('조회합니다'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the parameter or output, but it's appropriately concise for its purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of prompts, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral details like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The description mentions '최근 며칠간' (recent days), which aligns with the 'days' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter is fully documented with a description and default value), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose ('조회합니다' meaning 'retrieves' or 'queries') and specifies the resource ('질문들' meaning 'questions/prompts') with a time scope ('최근 며칠간' meaning 'recent days'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_prompts_by_date' or 'get_today_prompts', which also retrieve prompts with different time filters. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_prompts_by_date' (which might allow specific date ranges) or 'get_today_prompts' (which likely retrieves only today's prompts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the time scope but not explicitly defined.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YUJAEYUN/learnlog-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server