List recent Rivian charging history newest first with energy, cost, duration, and location.
List charging history newest first, with energy, cost, duration and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of newest sessions to show. Defaults to 25. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Number of newest sessions to show. Defaults to 25.",
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee and the returned field set, but says nothing about auth requirements, result volume, or how far back history goes.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause (ordering, returned fields) carries information.
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, the description usefully enumerates the payload fields (energy, cost, duration, location), so an agent knows what it gets back. Handling of truncation or pagination beyond 'limit' is left unstated, which is the only real gap for a single-parameter read 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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 25. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List charging history') plus the ordering and the fields returned, which cleanly separates it from the singular rivian_get_charging_session. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or contrast scope, so differentiation is left implicit.
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?
'History, newest first' implies past sessions rather than the live session, which gives an agent a usable hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to rivian_get_charging_session for current-session data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.