Locate and read a session's raw conversation history on disk, resolving config-dir indirection so callers can inspect stored files without path guesswork.
Where a session's conversation is stored on disk, so a caller can read the raw history itself. Resolves the config-dir indirection rather than guessing a path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max files to list | |
| session | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavior: it "resolves the config-dir indirection rather than guessing a path." That is genuinely useful context. But it says nothing about the return shape (a path string vs. a file list), whether the path is guaranteed to exist, or what happens on an unknown session.
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 that front-load the core purpose (disk location) before the mechanics (config-dir resolution). No padding, though the second sentence's value depends on the ambiguous return semantics.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage. For a tool whose entire value is telling the caller where to look, the description omits the return format and the meaning of `limit`, leaving an agent unable to use the result confidently.
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 only 50% — `session` has no description and `limit` is documented only as "Max files to list." The description alludes to "a session's conversation," loosely covering `session`, but says nothing about `limit` and even conflicts semantically with a single stored path. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 says the tool resolves where a session's conversation is stored on disk, but the schema's `limit: Max files to list` suggests it lists files, creating ambiguity about whether it returns one path or many. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like agent_read or agent_list, which likely consume this path. The purpose is only partially pinned down.
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?
"So a caller can read the raw history itself" implies the intended workflow (resolve path, then read it yourself), which hints at why you'd pick this over a reading tool. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against agent_read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.