github-code-rag-mcp

search_history

Check previously read projects by category to determine whether to reuse existing code or search for new GitHub repositories.

Instructions

查询某个类别之前读过什么项目。

用户说"做个XX"时，第一步调本工具查历史记录。有记录 → search_code 搜代码，无记录 → search_github 搜新仓库。

Args: category: Search category (e.g. "电商web", "点餐小程序")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "search_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool queries history (implying read-only) but lacks details on return format, pagination, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive for a query tool.

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?

Description is brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes usage context. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section repeats schema name but adds example.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides necessary context including trigger scenario and next steps. Missing some behavioral details but complete enough for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and description adds example for category ('电商web'), but does not specify allowed values or format beyond the example. With a single parameter, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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?

Description clearly states '查询某个类别之前读过什么项目' (query previously read projects by category), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code and search_github by specifying its role in the workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs when to use: '用户说"做个XX"时，第一步调本工具查历史记录' and provides decision logic for alternatives (有记录 → search_code, 无记录 → search_github), which is excellent guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server