Find orphaned document histories whose source files are gone, then restore or purge them. Scans app-data stores and an optional folder to prevent stale history buildup.
List stores whose document is gone (app-data stores, and dir/.doc-control). Their history is never deleted automatically: restore from it with store, or purge it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | Also scan this folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: orphaned history is never deleted automatically. It also names the two follow-up operations, so the agent understands the lifecycle. Missing are any return-shape or volume details, but the read-only safety profile is already covered.
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?
Two sentences, tightly front-loaded with the resource definition before the follow-up actions. Every clause carries information: the scope, the lifespan fact, and the two possible next steps.
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?
For a single-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle behavior, and next actions. It is nearly complete; only a hint about what the list entries contain (beyond 'stores') would round it out.
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 coverage is 100%, so the `dir` parameter and its "Also scan this folder" semantics are already documented. The description's mention of `dir`/.doc-control loosely reinforces that scanning scope, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb ("List") and a precisely scoped resource ("stores whose document is gone"), then clarifies the jargon with examples (app-data stores, `dir`/.doc-control). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like history_list and history_search, which operate on live document history rather than orphans.
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?
Gives clear context for when to reach for it (finding history that outlived its document) and routes next steps (restore vs. purge). It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this over history_list/history_search, and the referenced `store` doesn't cleanly match the `restore` sibling, leaving a small inference gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.