Retrieve MapleStory starforce enhancement history records. Specify a count per call, optional date, and use cursor to paginate through results.
스타포스 강화 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 says 'retrieves.' It does not mention pagination via cursor, date filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or ordering behavior. The read-only nature is only implicit.
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 compact sentence that communicates the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
Although the schema is fully described and an output schema exists, the description lacks behavioral context and any prerequisite or workflow guidance. An agent would not know that this is a paginated history lookup or whether a previous OCID lookup is required before calling it.
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 description coverage is 100%, so date, count, and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, examples, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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' (retrieves), and an unambiguous resource, '스타포스 강화 이력' (Star Force enhancement history). This clearly differentiates it from sibling history tools like get_history_cube and get_history_potential.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an OCID or character context, and no exclusion criteria. The only usage signal is the tool name and the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.