Retrieve the journal history for a named CAD object, showing how it was created, edited, combined, or moved to trace changes and verify model state.
All journal entries whose arguments mention object name: how it was created, edited, combined or moved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching is based on journal entries whose arguments mention the object name rather than direct object mutations, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, ordering, completeness, or scope limits.
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 no filler, and the activity list is compact. It delivers the core retrieval behavior efficiently.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves the required `doc` parameter unexplained and does not clarify whether results are scoped to that document. Given the lack of annotations and zero schema description coverage, this is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 compensate for both parameters. It explains `name` as the object name used to match journal arguments, but it never defines the required `doc` parameter, leaving half the input semantics undocumented.
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 the returned resource (journal entries) and the filter (entries whose arguments mention object `name`), plus the kinds of activity covered. It is clear about what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `list_history` tool.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `list_history` or other history-related siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the object-name filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.