Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sangingeum

filekeeper-mcp

by sangingeum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

history_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recorded workspace operations newest first, optionally filtering by path, actor, or task ID. Use returned operation IDs to inspect history, view diffs, or undo changes.

Instructions

List recorded operations in the selected workspace, newest first.

    Read-only. path narrows to operations touching that workspace-relative
    path; actor and task_id are filters, not authority, and never change what
    a mutation records. limit is capped at 200. Returns operation ids usable
    with history_get, history_diff and undo_operation. Paths are rendered
    when read: a workspace rooted at the filesystem root reports target and
    item paths with their leading '/' so they are absolute.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
actorNo
limitNo
task_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes well beyond them: newest-first ordering, a hard limit cap of 200, and the non-obvious path-rendering quirk where a workspace rooted at the filesystem root reports absolute paths with leading '/'. It also clarifies that actor/task_id do not change what a mutation records, heading off a likely misinterpretation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filter/limit facts follow logically. The standalone "Read-only." sentence is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, and the path-rendering aside is dense enough to slow parsing, but nothing is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and four parameters, the description does the necessary work: it explains the return (operation ids usable downstream) and covers each parameter's role. It stops short of complete because actor/task_id semantics stay thin and the limit-overflow behavior is unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters, and it largely does: path's narrowing semantics and rendering, actor/task_id as filters with no authority, and limit's 200 cap. Gaps remain — it doesn't define what 'actor' identifies (who performed the operation vs. who is viewing) and 'capped at 200' is ambiguous about whether larger values error or clamp.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("List recorded operations") plus the scope ("in the selected workspace") and ordering ("newest first"). It also names the sibling tools that consume the returned ids (history_get, history_diff, undo_operation), so an agent can place it in the family without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes filtering intent — path narrows to operations touching that path, while actor and task_id are filters, not authority — and points to history_get/history_diff/undo_operation as follow-ups. It never states an explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer history_get directly or whether single-operation lookup requires this call first), so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools