Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_manual_history

Read-only

Retrieve a design's manual revision history in chronological order, optionally including retired revisions, to track changes and audit manual updates.

Instructions

List the chronological revision history of a design's manuals.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_manual_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_idYesThe design whose manual revisions to list.
include_retiredNoWhen ``True``, also list revisions retired with ``retire_manual_revision``. Defaults to ``False``, which hides them. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"The design whose manual revisions to list."
    • changedInput schema / properties / include_retired / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"When ``True``, also list revisions retired with ``retire_manual_revision``. Defaults to ``False``, which hides them. Default: false."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the ordering trait ('chronological') and says nothing about pagination, ordering direction, or default exclusion of retired revisions (that detail lives in the schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, exactly sized for the stated behavior. It is clean but so terse that it leaves gaps rather than a clearly structured statement of scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Minor gaps remain around result volume and ordering direction, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both design_id and include_retired, including a reference to retire_manual_revision. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chronological revision history of a design's manuals'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_manual_revision or retire_manual_revision. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over get_manual_revision (single revision) or diff_assembly_manuals, and must infer it from names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools