Review recent Gramps Web tree changes by time and user, then get the transaction ID needed to undo a bad bulk edit.
Recent writes to the tree: what changed, when, by which user.
Each entry's transaction_id is what undo_transaction takes. Useful for "what did that bulk pass actually do?" and for finding the transaction to reverse when it did the wrong thing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many, newest first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it describes the return content (what changed, when, by which user) and, critically, that each entry's transaction_id is the input that undo_transaction consumes, linking the read to the corrective action.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the practical hook. Every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name or schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does ('what changed, when, by which user') plus the key transaction_id field. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. ordering or default), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Recent writes to the tree: what changed, when, by which user'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It clearly conveys the listing of recent mutation history, though it does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_transaction or get_record_history 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?
Provides concrete scenarios for when to reach for it ('what did that bulk pass actually do?' and 'finding the transaction to reverse when it did the wrong thing'). It gives clear context but names no explicit exclusion or alternative list tool, leaving the reader to infer when a different sibling is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.