get_booking_historyRetrieve past restaurant bookings made through this server, newest first, including status, restaurant, date, party, plan, price, notes, and failure reason; filter results by status or purpose.
Past bookings made through this server, newest first: status, restaurant, date, party, plan, price, notes, failure reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| purpose | No |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the sort order and the set of fields returned, but it says nothing about pagination/limit behavior or whether results are scoped to the authenticated user.
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?
The single fragment sentence is dense and front-loaded with the resource and ordering before the field list. Nothing is wasted, though the list-style phrasing sacrifices a little readability.
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, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful and largely covers the return value. However, the tool has three optional parameters whose semantics are absent from both description and schema, so the definition is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to call it.
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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden for limit, status, and purpose. Instead, 'status' appears only as a returned field, never as a filter, and neither limit nor purpose is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer filtering capability purely from raw enum definitions.
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 clearly identifies the resource as past bookings made through this server and adds the ordering (newest first), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutation siblings like prepare_booking or confirm_booking. It never names a sibling explicitly, and the verb is implied rather than stated, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as show_booking_window or get_availability, and no mention of the filtering options an agent could use. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'past bookings,' which is minimal guidance for a tool with three optional filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.