get_account_delete_historyRetrieve the deletion history for a specified ledger to identify removed records since the last sync, enabling data recovery and consistency checks.
查询账本删除历史（GET /accountBook/getAccountDeleteHistory/{userId}/{ownerId}/{bookId}/{lastSyncTime}）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | 账本 ID | |
| user_id | No | ||
| owner_id | No | 账本所属用户 ID | |
| last_sync_time | No | 上次同步时间戳(ms) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses an API endpoint and implies a read-only operation, but doesn't state that it returns no data if no deletions exist, or any pagination/limits. Mutation behavior is not relevant here, but auth requirements are not mentioned.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loads the verb and resource. However, it includes the full path which is redundant with the schema, and could be shortened. No structure or headings.
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 simple read query, description is borderline adequate. It doesn't mention the return payload (though no output schema exists), nor does it specify that user_id is optional (only book_id required). Given siblings like get_delete_history exist, and no annotations, it's missing guidance on exact parameter usage and return format.
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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (book_id, owner_id, last_sync_time). The description repeats the path but adds no meaning beyond the schema. user_id lacks a description but is inferable from the path. The description does not explain the relationship between last_sync_time and incremental sync.
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 clearly states the tool queries deletion history for account books, with a specific HTTP path. It distinguishes it from 'get_delete_history' but only by resource specificity, not by clear differentiation from siblings like 'get_book_last_time'.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention synchronization contexts or when to call it (e.g., during sync_pull). The bare HTTP endpoint is given but no context on typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.