Get every version of a saved decoration (Kiln Pro).
Get every version of a saved decoration (Kiln Pro).
Each version with when it was made, what changed, the materials
it has printed well on and its print count.
:param name: Decoration name or slug.
:returns: Dict with the version history and the current version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates what each version record contains (creation time, what changed, materials it printed well on, print count) and states the return shape as a dict with history plus current version. Gaps remain around not-found behavior, version ordering, and any size/pagination limits on the history list.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in the first line, then a compact enumeration of returned fields. The Sphinx-style ':param' / ':returns' markup is slightly mechanical but each line carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and the shape of the result well enough to call it correctly. The only real omission is failure behavior for an unknown decoration name/slug, which is minor for a read-only lookup.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single required parameter is documented as accepting a 'Decoration name or slug', which is meaning the schema does not convey. No further detail (case sensitivity, ambiguity handling) is given.
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 and resource: 'Get every version of a saved decoration.' The scope ('every version', plus the current version in the returns note) distinguishes it from sibling readers like decoration_info or list_decorations. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the version-history framing.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., decoration_info for current state vs. this tool for history). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'history'. The '(Kiln Pro)' tag hints at a plan prerequisite but is not explained as a precondition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.