Retrieve the multi-agent conversation history, with optional filters for specific agents or recent messages, to review collaboration on software development projects.
Retrieve the multi-agent conversation history with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last_n | No | Number of recent messages to retrieve (default: all) | |
| agent_filter | No | Filter by specific agent (pm, architect, engineer, qa, reviewer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but nothing states ordering of messages, pagination/truncation behavior with last_n, scope (which session/conversation), or whether results are live versus persisted. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for the missing behavioral context, but on structure alone it is clean.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It never clarifies which conversation is scoped (no session identifier parameter) or how last_n interacts with agent_filter, leaving a real ambiguity an agent could trip on.
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%, and both parameters (last_n default 'all', agent_filter with value hints) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning such as sort order or filter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (multi-agent conversation history), which is clearly distinct from siblings like clear_history and list_sessions. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives it is differentiated from, so it does not quite reach a 5.
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?
Only 'with optional filtering' hints at how the tool is used; there is no statement of when to call it versus clear_history, list_sessions, or the workflow siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.