Retrieve the complete history of tool calls made through the bridge, with optional filters for tool and source.
Returns the full shared history of all tool calls made through this bridge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| tool_filter | No | ||
| source_filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses this is a read operation ('Returns') and specifies the scope ('full shared history of all tool calls'). However, it does not disclose whether history persists across sessions, how the limit/filter parameters interact with the returned data, or any other behavioral constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would be warranted.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose clearly, though it may be under-specified given the number of parameters it fails to address.
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?
The tool has an output schema, which covers return-value documentation, reducing the need for the description to explain returns. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage context, the description leaves significant gaps: the three parameters are undocumented and there is no guidance on filtering or limiting behavior. It is minimally adequate but thin.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention limit, tool_filter, or source_filter at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory and the schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema offers.
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 and resource: 'Returns the full shared history of all tool calls made through this bridge.' It is clear about what it does and its scope (full shared history). It distinguishes from siblings since none of the listed sibling tools concern history retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description leaves usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.