aeza-mcp

referral_programs_get_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve referral program operations history with filters, sorting, limits, and pagination to review past referral activity and audit changes.

Instructions

Get referral program operations history GET /referral-programs/history

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "referral_programs_get_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No
`limit`	No
`filter`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, default result size, sort semantics, or whether history is unbounded/retained, which matters for a history listing exposed over an open-world API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the second line is just a path echo that carries little agent-relevant meaning. No wasted words, but also little substance per sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the minimal description plus annotations is close to the minimum viable level, but four undocumented pagination/filtering parameters leave the agent guessing on invocation details. A sentence on what 'operations' contains and how paging works would close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all four parameters (sort, limit, filter, offset) and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — not even the allowed values for 'sort' or 'filter', or that defaults are limit=50/offset=0. With low coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get referral program operations history'), which is enough to identify this as the history endpoint versus siblings like daily stats, tiers, or top. However, 'operations history' is vague about what records are returned (payouts? referrals? status changes?) and nothing in the text differentiates it from the other referral_programs_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 tool versus the sibling stats/tiers/top tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server