hedgedoc-mcp

hedgedoc_list_history

Read-only

List the logged-in user's recently viewed and pinned HedgeDoc notes with titles, tags, pin status, and last-viewed timestamps.

Instructions

List the logged-in user's recently viewed and pinned notes.

Returns a JSON array of note objects. Each object includes: 'id' (note ID or alias), 'text' (note title), 'tags' (array of strings), 'pinned' (boolean), and 'time' (last-viewed timestamp in milliseconds). Requires a valid session — returns an error if not authenticated.

Tool call template

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": "hedgedoc_list_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Oct 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / title
```
Added value: +"hedgedoc_list_historyArguments"
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it requires a valid session and returns an error if unauthenticated, plus it documents the returned fields since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action statement is front-loaded in one sentence, and the return-shape detail that follows earns its place because no output schema is defined. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, the return structure and field types, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly does not invent any. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List), resource (recently viewed and pinned notes), and a clear owner scope (the logged-in user's). The scope wording implicitly separates it from siblings like hedgedoc_note_info and hedgedoc_read_note, which operate on a specific note rather than the user's history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'recently viewed and pinned notes' — an agent can infer this is the history lookup — but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings or any exclusions. No explicit when-to-use routing is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server