histor_server

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It enumerates returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or result limits. An agent cannot tell from this text whether calling it is safe or bounded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with scope stated first and the return-field enumeration after the colon. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the field enumeration usefully covers what comes back, and the scope clause covers both parameters loosely. However, usage routing, permissions, and pagination behavior are absent, leaving gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical does map the two usage modes onto the parameters, implying 'endpoint' selects one endpoint and 'name' is a registry name spanning endpoints, but it never gives formats, IDs, or whether both can be combined.

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 names a specific resource ('HISTOR's observation record') and its scope ('one MCP endpoint or every endpoint of a registry name'), plus an enumerated field list that makes the tool's output concrete. It never states the verb (retrieve) explicitly nor distinguishes itself from histor_changes/histor_check, so an agent must infer the boundary from the field list alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools histor_changes or histor_check as alternatives. The parenthetical about endpoint vs. registry name implies two usage modes but does not tell the agent which to pick or when.

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