Retrieves a project's full history from the history API without local time-window or subscription filtering, passing the pagination cursor to page through results.
Return the history API response unchanged. No local time-window restriction or subscription filtering is applied. Pass the server pagination cursor as before.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| before | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that filtering is not applied and pagination uses a server cursor, but it omits return format, error behavior, and authentication considerations.
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 short, front-loaded, and largely free of waste. The phrase 'as before' is slightly ambiguous, but the overall structure is efficient.
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?
With no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the description leaves important details unexplained: what history records are returned, what projectId scopes, and how the cursor affects pagination. It supplies only partial context for a two-parameter listing tool.
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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It vaguely references a server pagination cursor, but does not clearly map that to the 'before' parameter, and it says nothing about the required 'projectId' parameter or its 24-character hex pattern.
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 says it returns the history API response unchanged, which implies a history-listing tool, but it never explicitly states what is being listed or how it differs from get_history_diff or list_history_labels. The lack of a clear verb+resource pairing leaves the purpose somewhat vague.
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?
It notes that no local time-window or subscription filtering is applied and mentions passing a server pagination cursor, but it does not say when to use this tool versus the sibling history tools. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.