history_searchSearch browsing history by text and time range to find past visits. Filter by URL or title keywords and timestamps for targeted results.
Searches the browsing history by text and time range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text to match in URL or title (empty matches all). | |
| startTime | No | Only visits after this time (ms since epoch). | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum results (default 50). |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name: nothing on result ordering (recency?), whether an empty call returns everything, or pagination/truncation behavior at maxResults.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting useful detail rather than from tight editing.
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 simple read-only, zero-required-param search with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. Missing are ordering guarantees and how results are capped, which an agent would want before paging or assembling a picture of history.
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 100%, with each parameter (text, startTime, maxResults) fully documented including units and defaults. The description merely restates the filter dimensions, adding no semantics beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (searches) and resource (browsing history) plus the filtering facets (text, time range), which distinguishes it from resource-adjacent siblings like bookmarks and downloads. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose — a read-only lookup over history — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to an alternative sibling when the target is a bookmark or download instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.