axcel_history_getRetrieve a single history item by ID, including its result URL, to inspect a past generation and access its output.
One history item, including its result URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes a 'result URL', which is useful output context beyond annotations, but it does not describe the full return shape, auth needs, or error behavior. With annotations carrying most of the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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 extremely short and front-loaded with no filler, so it respects conciseness. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, which slightly weakens its structure, but every word still carries information.
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?
For a simple read-only retrieval, the annotations cover safety and the description notes the key return element (result URL). The missing id semantics and lack of distinction from axcel_history_list leave gaps, but given the low complexity and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate.
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 sole parameter 'id' is undocumented in both the schema and the tool description. The phrase 'One history item' hints that an identifier is needed, but the description does not explain what the id represents, its format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 identifies the resource and count ('One history item') and a return element ('result URL'), so the purpose is inferable. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like axcel_history_list or axcel_history_delete, making it vague rather than specific.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as axcel_history_list, nor any note on prerequisites like where to obtain the required id. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.