Retrieve the most recent tool calls in the session to audit and review actions taken.
Return the last N tool calls made in this session for self-audit.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tool_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last_n | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states it returns the last N tool calls, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. This is transparent and sufficient for a simple audit 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key scope. It avoids unnecessary details and is directly to the point.
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?
The tool is simple with one self-explanatory parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of the 'last_n' parameter, but its meaning is evident from the name and default value, so the overall context is adequate.
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 input schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default for 'last_n' with no description. The tool description does not mention the parameter or explain its meaning or constraints. Although the name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic guidance, and schema coverage is 0%, so it fails to compensate.
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 states the function: 'Return the last N tool calls made in this session for self-audit.' It specifies the action (return), the object (tool calls), scope (in this session), and purpose (self-audit). No other sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is unambiguous.
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 'for self-audit' provides clear context for when to use the tool, implying usage during review or debugging sessions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, though no sibling tool appears to offer comparable functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.