get_historyTrack deck changes by listing each revision with its author, summary, and operations. Provide the deck ID to review version history and see what was modified.
Lists the revisions of a deck with author, summary and operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_id | Yes | Deck id from create_deck or list_decks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each revision includes author, summary, and operations, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or limits on how many revisions are returned.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero padding. It is efficient, though the single sentence leaves no room for behavioral or usage detail.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose and the shape of returned entries (author, summary, operations), which partially compensates for the absent output schema. Only the ordering/pagination behavior of the revision list is left unstated.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that deck_id comes from create_deck or list_decks. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("the revisions of a deck") and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from get_deck, list_decks, and revert_deck. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
The concept of "history" implies when to use it (inspecting past revisions), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no pointer to revert_deck as the complementary action. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.