Retrieve the complete revision history for a Linear document's content record to track changes and restore previous versions.
Get content history entries for a Linear document content record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document content ID to inspect |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| history | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what entries are returned, ordering, limits). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value here.
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 with no waste. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description adequately indicates what the tool returns. For a simple read operation, it is complete, though it lacks notes on pagination or ordering.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' has a description 'Document content ID to inspect'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'content history entries', and the scope 'for a Linear document content record'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linear_getDocumentById or linear_getIssueHistory by focusing specifically on content history.
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 description implies usage when needing content history entries for a document, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_getDocumentById or linear_getIssueHistory. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.