get_historyLists all past review rounds for a review id, or fetches one past draft with its feedback by specifying a round number.
List a review's past rounds; with round, fetch one past draft plus the feedback it received.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the opaque review id | |
| round | No | round number; omit for the list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the single-round mode returns a past draft plus received feedback, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about what the list mode returns (round identifiers, summaries, ordering) or about pagination.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the default behavior and then the parameterized variant. No filler and no redundancy with the title.
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 two-mode read tool with no output schema, the single-round return is described but the list-mode return is not, leaving an agent guessing what a 'past round' entry contains. Adequate but with a clear gap in the more commonly used default mode.
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% and the schema already states 'round number; omit for the list', so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds the outcome of supplying `round`, but nothing about valid ranges, default round, or what `id` must refer to beyond the schema's 'opaque review id'.
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 and resource ('List a review's past rounds') and adds a second mode ('with `round`, fetch one past draft plus the feedback it received'). The 'past rounds' framing distinguishes it from get_review/list_reviews, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 mode-selection guidance: omit `round` for the list, supply it for a single past draft plus its feedback. It does not explicitly point to an alternative tool (e.g. get_feedback for current feedback), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.