Retrieve all scope request, cost estimate, and actual outcome triples for a property to compare planned vs. actual renovation costs. Returns an empty list when no history exists.
Return all (scope_request, scope_estimate, actual_outcome) triples for a property as a list of dicts. Empty list if property has no history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (list of dicts of triples) and the empty-list edge case, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the history is ordered/complete, or pagination for a read tool with no annotation coverage.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the return contract and then the edge case. The tuple notation is dense but compact and informative.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the important work of describing the return structure and the empty case. What remains missing is ordering/recency semantics and any usage context relative to the estimate siblings.
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 0% and the single parameter property_id is undocumented in the schema. The description implies scoping 'for a property' but never names or explains property_id's format, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap; with just one obvious parameter, this is acceptable but thin.
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 ('Return') and resource ('property history') and even names the exact tuple structure returned. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like estimate_scope or generate_scope_of_work, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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 versus the many estimate/scope siblings, nor any prerequisite or context for calling it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.