get_delete_historyRetrieve deleted records from Yimu bookkeeping by user ID and optional timestamp. Use it to recover or review removed entries, with time defaulting to full history when omitted.
查询删除记录（GET /deleteHistory/getDeleteHistory/{userId}/{time}），time 缺省 0 全量。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | No | 起始时间戳(ms) | |
| user_id | No |
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 the burden. It does disclose the operation is a GET/read and explains a notable behavior: time defaults to 0 for a full query. However, it does not mention authentication needs, response shape, pagination, or any side effects, which limits transparency.
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 compact sentence. It front-loads the core purpose brief, includes the endpoint path, and immediately conveys the key default behavior without any filler.
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 GET tool this is minimally adequate: it provides the endpoint and default behavior. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expected return contents and any usage context, so an agent may still need to infer what 'delete records' means in response.
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 only 50% (time is described, user_id is not). The description adds some value by explaining the endpoint parameters and the meaning of time=0 as full data, but it does not fully clarify user_id semantics beyond what its name suggests.
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 action ('查询删除记录') and resource, and adds the concrete HTTP endpoint for clarity. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_account_delete_history, but the user/time endpoint makes the target resource reasonably distinct.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_delete_history, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the default behavior of 'time', which is more about semantics than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.