Report the history cursor, total entries, undo/redo availability, and current label for a podcast project, so producers can track edit state.
Report history cursor, total, undo/redo availability, and current label.
| 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?
With no annotations the description carries full burden. 'Report' implies a non-destructive read and the enumerated fields describe output, but there is no explicit statement of read-only safety, permissions, or side effects. Implied safety only.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the reported fields with zero filler. 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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain returns, yet it largely restates them. With 0% param coverage and no annotations, the unexplained project_path and absent usage context leave visible gaps for an otherwise simple status tool.
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?
One parameter (project_path) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It is optional with a null default, but neither the schema nor the description explains its role or what happens when it is omitted.
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 verb ('Report') and resource ('history') and enumerates the exact fields returned (cursor, total, undo/redo availability, label). This clearly marks it as a read-only status query distinct from the mutating history_undo/history_redo siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent must infer that this is a pre-check before history_undo/history_redo, and nothing distinguishes it from history_list or the other status tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.