Retrieve MapleStory cube usage history by specifying how many records to fetch and an optional date. Use the cursor from a previous response to paginate through results.
큐브 사용 이력을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| count | Yes | 한 번에 조회할 건수 | |
| cursor | No | 이전 응답의 next_cursor 값 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, date semantics, or anything about how count and cursor interact.
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 extremely concise with no filler words. It is slightly underspecified for a paginated history endpoint, but as a single-sentence purpose statement it is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Output schema and full parameter documentation cover much of the calling context. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description alone leaves pagination flow and behavioral expectations under-specified, though it remains minimally viable for a simple history lookup.
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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a clear resource ('큐브 사용 이력' / cube usage history). It is distinguishable from sibling history tools like get_history_starforce and get_history_potential by the resource named, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied through the resource name: an agent looking for cube usage history can infer this is the right tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling history tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.