cli-history-hub

by smallpinksquare

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but history_get_recent_context and history_get_project_summary both return project overviews, which could cause confusion. The other tools (search, get_thread, list_connectors, update_summary) are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the history_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (get_recent_context, get_thread, list_connectors, get_project_summary, update_project_summary). The exception is history_search, which uses a bare verb, but the overall style is consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With six tools, the set is well-scoped for managing CLI history—covering retrieval, search, thread access, connector listing, and project summary management. This is an appropriate size, not too thin or overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tools cover the core workflows: recent context, historical search, thread retrieval, connector discovery, and project summary viewing/updating. No critical operations are missing for the stated purpose of a history hub.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the subagent exclusion default, which is useful, but doesn't mention read-only nature, pagination, or exact data scope beyond 'registered agents.' Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks detail on return shape, parameter semantics (limit, source, project), and how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
What is the meaning of parameters with schema coverage only 20% and description lacking detail? The description adds context for include_subagents via the default note but ignores limit, source, and project entirely, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a project overview plus recent primary conversation summaries across registered agents, and notes subagents are excluded by default. This distinguishes it from siblings like history_search and history_get_thread, though the term 'primary' is slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives. The description implies use for getting recent context but doesn't clarify when to choose this over history_get_project_summary or history_get_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and provides a caution about full mode, but doesn't explain return format, pagination, side effects, or the implications of different modes. The full-mode warning adds some context, but it's not sufficient to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing a conditional usage note. It has no filler or irrelevant content. While it's overly brief, the structure is effective for the limited information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the modes, query behavior, character limits, or include_tools flag, and gives no indication of the return value. The single usage condition about full mode is insufficient for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and explain parameters. It only mentions 'Full mode' indirectly, and completely fails to explain thread_id, query, max_chars, include_tools, or the meaning of 'summary' and 'relevant' modes. This is a critical gap for a tool with five parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads a selected history thread, using the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'history thread'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is done 'after identifying it via recent context or search', positioning it as a targeted retrieval step. The mention of 'Full mode' adds a specific behavioral nuance that clarifies the purpose.
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?
The description implicitly guides when to use this tool: after identifying a thread via recent context or search, which aligns with sibling tools like history_get_recent_context and history_search. It also provides a clear conditional for using 'full' mode. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it loses a point for not being fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key side effect boundary (writes only to Hub, never to source CLI files). However, it omits other behavior an agent might need, such as whether the summary is fully overwritten, permission requirements, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifying the scope boundary. Every clause adds value with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool, the core side effect and scope are covered. But ambiguity in 'confirmed durable' and missing parameter semantics mean the agent still lacks enough context to safely invoke it in all cases (e.g., when project_path is required).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only project_path is described). The description does not compensate by explaining the 'project' or 'summary' parameters or their expected formats, leaving the agent to guess what 'summary' should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('confirmed durable project overview in the independent Hub'), with a clear scope boundary ('Hub only'). It distinguishes from the sibling read tool history_get_project_summary by action, though the phrase 'confirmed durable' is somewhat opaque.
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?
The description clearly states the intended context (updating the durable overview in the Hub) and explicitly excludes source CLI session files ('Never writes to any source CLI session files'). It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is reasonably clear for a targeted update tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool searches across every registered agent and targets older, cross-project history. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, performance implications, or how results are aggregated beyond the schema's limited parameter notes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value: 'older', 'cross-project', 'every registered agent', and the specific usage triggers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good purpose and usage guidance, the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not cover required parameter semantics, return value shape, or how the search behaves across connectors/projects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the required 'query' parameter, nor the optional 'model', 'source', or 'project' parameters. The description only hints at 'source/topic' in the usage guidance, which is insufficient for the 7-parameter tool.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('older cross-project history across every registered agent'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'older' and 'cross-project', which sets it apart from history_get_recent_context and history_get_thread.
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?
The description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'only when the user explicitly asks to search past history, names an older date/source/topic, or recent context is insufficient.' This strongly implies when not to use it and contrasts with recent-context tools, though it does not name the alternative sibling tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the 'durable' nature and the fact that it avoids loading transcripts, which hints at non-destructive, lightweight behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe side effects/permissions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is clear and free of filler. It communicates the core purpose and key differentiator efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the 'overview' contains or how to specify the project. It does explain the benefit over transcript loading, but leaves out return value details and the nuanced role of both parameters, making it only moderately complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%: 'project_path' has a description, but 'project' is undocumented. The tool description does not explain either parameter or their relationship, leaving the agent without guidance on how to disambiguate when both are provided.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'durable overview of a project.' It also distinguishes from siblings by adding 'without loading conversation transcripts,' which separates it from tools like history_get_thread or history_get_recent_context.
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?
The description implies the intended use case: when you need a quick overview and want to avoid loading full transcripts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' and the explicit mention of returned data (capabilities and counts) transparently convey a read-only inventory operation. It does not suggest any side effects or hidden behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded verb and specific objects. There is no filler, redundancy, or ambiguity.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers its function and return content. It specifies what will be listed (connectors, capabilities, counts) and is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema already documents this fully (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('registered history connectors') and elaborates on what is returned (capabilities and indexed source/thread counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like history_search and history_get_thread, which are retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining an inventory of connectors and their statistics, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cli-history-hub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smallpinksquare/cli-history-hub/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smallpinksquare/cli-history-hub)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cli-history-hub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smallpinksquare/cli-history-hub/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/smallpinksquare/cli-history-hub)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/smallpinksquare/cli-history-hub'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server