Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr-analysis-server

mcp-adr-analysis-server

by tosin2013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

query_conversation_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and retrieve past conversation sessions by keyword, date range, tools used, or project path to analyze decision history.

Instructions

Phase 3: Search and retrieve conversation sessions based on filters

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "query_conversation_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of sessions to return
keywordNoSearch keyword in conversation turns
dateRangeNoFilter by date range
toolsUsedNoFilter by tools used in the session
projectPathNoFilter by project path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond implying read-only retrieval, such as result ordering, pagination, or session matching semantics.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. However, the 'Phase 3:' prefix is unexplained and carries little descriptive weight, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the tool is callable, but the absence of an output schema and the lack of clarification about what a 'conversation session' contains or how this relates to get_conversation_snapshot leaves notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description only says 'based on filters' and does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Search and retrieve') and a specific resource ('conversation sessions') with filters. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling get_conversation_snapshot.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conversation_snapshot or expand_memory. 'Phase 3' hints at a workflow but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools