axcel_history_listRetrieve your Axcel generation history from the past 7 days, newest first, with cursor pagination, prompt or model search, and optional hiding of failed generations.
Generation history on Axcel (kept 7 days), newest first. Use the returned cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| search | No | Search by prompt or model. | |
| hideFailed | No | Hide failed generations (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the 7-day retention window, newest-first sort order, and cursor-based pagination. It doesn't describe the shape of each history entry, but with annotations already carrying safety this is solid added context.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (retention, ordering) come first, with pagination last. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers ordering, retention, and continuation mechanics. It omits what fields a history record contains and the default page size, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 67%; search and hideFailed are documented inline, while cursor has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining that cursor comes from the previous response and drives the next page, which is exactly the undocumented parameter. Adequate but minimal.
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?
States a specific resource (generation history) with scope details (kept 7 days, newest first), which distinguishes it from siblings like axcel_history_get and axcel_history_delete. It never explicitly says 'list', but the name and the newest-first framing make the list semantics unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the pagination note, but the description never states when to prefer this over axcel_history_get (single item) or axcel_library_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given; the agent must infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.