figure_library_template_historyRetrieve the immutable content revision and release history for a figure template to audit changes and verify published versions before reuse.
Return immutable Content Revision and Release history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description adds the adjective 'immutable', which reinforces the non-changeable nature of the history but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or response structure. It provides a small amount of context beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no fluff and is appropriately concise for a straightforward retrieval tool. However, it may be too sparse given the need to explain parameter meaning and return format, so a 4 is warranted.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description needs to provide sufficient context for the agent to confidently invoke the tool. It fails to mention what the returned history contains, how it is structured, or any ordering or limits. The description is under-specified for a tool that returns a non-trivial data set (revision and release history), leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the single parameter 'templateId'. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool fails to clarify what templateId refers to (e.g., the unique identifier of the template) or any constraints beyond the regex pattern. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool returns immutable Content Revision and Release history, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like preview, diff, and planning/apply operations, as it focuses on historical retrieval rather than modification or preview.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It neither specifies appropriate contexts (e.g., auditing changes, comparing versions) nor mentions any exclusions or alternatives. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.