Retrieve a compact, newest-first change timeline for a single schema object to populate the visualizer detail panel, as an app-facing companion to object history.
Compact newest-first change timeline for one schema object, sized for the visualizer detail panel. App-facing companion to get_object_history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO date or day count (e.g. "90") | |
| node_id | Yes | Entity type name (case-insensitive) | |
| endpoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.23Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden: it discloses newest-first ordering and compact/sized output, which is genuine behavioral context. However it does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated/truncated by a hidden cap, or any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a history tool.
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 tight sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded, and the sibling relationship last. Minimal waste, though 'App-facing companion' is slightly redundant with 'visualizer detail panel'.
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 4-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and one behavioral trait (ordering) but omits param meaning, pagination/limits, and read-only nature. Adequate to recognize the tool, insufficient to invoke it confidently.
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 50% and the description mentions zero parameters. It never explains node_id, limit default/cap, or the 'since' date-vs-day-count format, so it adds nothing beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented half.
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 and shape: 'newest-first change timeline for one schema object'. It clarifies the purpose via 'sized for the visualizer detail panel' and distinguishes itself from get_object_history as a 'companion'. Slightly less crisp than a 5 because 'compact' and 'App-facing' are jargon that don't sharpen the purpose.
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?
Implies usage via 'visualizer detail panel' and names get_object_history as the sibling it companions, but never states when to pick this one over get_object_history (e.g. compact/preview vs full history). No exclusions or prerequisites given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.