Retrieve Mango Office call history for a specified date range. Filter by start and end dates to analyze call records and statistics.
Получить историю звонков Mango Office за период.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Количество записей | |
| date_to | Yes | Конец периода (UNIX timestamp или ISO 8601) | |
| date_from | Yes | Начало периода (UNIX timestamp или ISO 8601) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'get call history for a period,' with no information about pagination, default limits, sorting, rate limits, or what happens with large datasets. It is a sparse definition that fails to inform the agent of any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is acceptable, but given the lack of behavioral info, it could be improved without being verbose.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the agent will get back, any constraints on the period, or how to handle edge cases. The current description only covers the core action, leaving out essential context like return structure, default behavior, and when to prefer alternatives. This makes it incomplete for effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., date formats are already specified in the schema). This matches the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('call history') plus a period constraint, so an agent knows the basic action. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'skill_call_history', which likely serves a similar purpose. The purpose is clear but not differentiated from alternatives.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'skill_call_history' or 'get_stats'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.