alexa_get_historyRetrieve past Alexa voice interaction history, including user utterances, device used, and timestamps. Use this to analyze user requests or audit device activity.
Retrieve recent voice interaction history (what users said to Alexa, device used, timestamps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of history records to return (default: 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and lists the returned content, but it does not define 'recent', mention ordering, pagination, or describe behavior when no history is available. Some behavioral ambiguity remains.
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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical that adds useful detail. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary filler.
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?
This is a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to communicate key return fields, which it does. It is largely complete for the tool's complexity, though it leaves minor gaps around ordering and exact response format.
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?
The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the input schema with a default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a distinct resource ('recent voice interaction history'), then clarifies the relevant data fields: what users said, device used, and timestamps. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like alexa_get_notifications or alexa_list_devices.
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?
The phrase 'recent voice interaction history' implies the tool is for fetching past user utterances, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Since no sibling tool obviously covers the same history use case, the absence of exclusions is minor, but the usage context remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.