Fetch an expiry item by UUID to view its renewal history, newest first, for tracking subscription or certificate renewals.
One expiry item with history: the items it renewed, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Expiry item UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.48Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only discloses that history is ordered newest first, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the UUID is not found, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior (one expiry item with history). It contains no fluff, though it might benefit from a little more detail. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity.
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 get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks behavioral context like error handling or what 'history' contains precisely, but given the low complexity, a 3 is fair. It could be more complete but is not severely inadequate.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it only implies the tool takes a UUID but does not elaborate. Since the schema already covers parameter meaning, this is adequate.
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 it gets one expiry item with its history, which is a specific verb+resource. It implies a single-item retrieval, distinguishing from expiries_list and expiries_upcoming. However, it could be more explicit about what fields are returned, but the core purpose is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus expiries_list or expiries_upcoming. The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to 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.