Fetch the infrastructure change history of a Datafence to audit modifications and track configuration updates over time.
Get the infrastructure change history of a Datafence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0-100, default 0) | |
| size | No | Items per page (1-100, default 10) | |
| fenceId | Yes | Datafence number (see ncloud_datafence_get_datafence) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering of history entries, no note on whether history is retained or how far back it goes.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though there is room for a small amount of useful scoping 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 read-only paginated lookup this is minimally adequate: schema covers the parameters and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description could say something about what a change-history entry contains, which it does not.
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% – page, size, and fenceId are all documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 clear verb and resource: retrieving the infrastructure change history of a Datafence. It is distinguishable in principle from ncloud_datafence_list_fence_infra and ncloud_datafence_change_fence_infra, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that list current infrastructure or modify it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.