fetch_historyRetrieve historical Aare river swimming data for a city between two dates to analyze past water temperatures and flow rates.
Fetch historical time-series data (called from UI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| city | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool fetches historical data and is UI-called, but it does not describe date/range semantics, response behavior, or any constraints, which is a meaningful transparency gap.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The parenthetical is mildly vague, but overall the structure is efficient for such a small tool.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits the parameter formats and does not address the ambiguous relationship with similarly named sibling tools. For an agent selecting among many history/forecast tools, this definition is incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the expected meanings or formats of city, start, or end. The phrase 'historical time-series data' weakly implies start and end form a date range, but no concrete parameter semantics are provided.
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 states a specific action and resource ('Fetch historical time-series data'), which is clear and distinguishes it from UI-invoked fetching. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling get_historical_data or historical_chart, so it is not fully distinct.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_historical_data or historical_chart. The parenthetical '(called from UI)' hints at invocation context but never says when an agent should choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.