Query MapleStory character potential ability reset history. Provide a count and optional date to filter, then use cursor to fetch additional pages.
잠재능력 재설정 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool 'queries' history, implying a read operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor/next_cursor), rate limits, date-range defaults, or the possibility of an empty response if no potential resets occurred.
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 fluff, achieving high conciseness. It could benefit from additional structured context, but that is not required for a high score on this dimension.
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?
Despite rich schema and an output schema, the description is too minimal to be operationally complete. It does not explain how this history differs from starforce or cube history, nor does it mention any prerequisite such as OCID acquisition. The agent is left to rely on the tool name and sibling context rather than explicit guidance.
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 describes all three parameters (date, count, cursor) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다') and a specific resource ('잠재능력 재설정 이력'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling history tools like get_history_starforce or get_history_cube, but the resource name itself provides reasonable distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_history_starforce or get_history_cube. It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining an OCID from get_character_ocid, which is likely required for character-specific history endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.