Retrieve the completion history for a Due Again item, including when it was done, skipped, or rescheduled and what each action cost.
The completion history of one Due Again item: when it was done, skipped or rescheduled, and what it cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| itemId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=true from annotations, the description does real work by disclosing the shape of the payload — historical events with timestamps and event kinds, and a 'cost' value. That is genuinely additive since no output schema exists, though ordering (oldest vs newest first) and the effect of the limit parameter remain undisclosed.
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 return content is stated up front in a compact colon-list. Slightly terse for a tool whose parameters are undocumented, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back but says nothing about the limit/pagination contract or ordering, which an agent needs to page correctly. Read-only annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.
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%, so the description must compensate and it does not: itemId is only obliquely implied by 'one Due Again item', and 'limit' is never mentioned, leaving its meaning (most recent N? oldest N?) and default of 20 unexplained.
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 names a specific resource — the completion history of one Due Again item — and enumerates the event types it contains (done, skipped, rescheduled) plus a cost field. That is enough to separate it from due_again_items and due_again_complete, though it never states a verb or explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: reading an item's history is the obvious reason to call this, and 'one Due Again item' hints that an itemId must be known in advance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite about resolving an itemId via due_again_items first, and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.