List a podcast project's history entries with index, label, and mutation type so producers can review past edits.
List the project's history entries (index, label, mutation type).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that the operation is read-only, what order entries are returned in, or whether the list is paginated/truncated. Naming the returned fields is the only behavioral signal, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 no filler; the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the returned fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described (though the description does list fields anyway). For a simple list tool this is close to sufficient, but the absence of ordering, scope, and any behavioral note leaves meaningful gaps given there are no annotations to fall back on.
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% and the description says nothing about project_path — not what value it expects, nor that omitting it defaults to the current project. The phrase 'the project's history' only vaguely implies project scoping, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the project's history entries') and even names the shape of each entry (index, label, mutation type). An agent can tell this is the read-only enumerator in the history family, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with history_status_tool, history_diff_tool or history_goto_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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other history siblings (history_undo, history_redo, history_status_tool, history_diff_tool), nor any prerequisites such as having a project loaded. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.