past.dev

Explain an ingestion

explain_ingestion

Read-onlyIdempotent

Where one ingestion stopped and what to do: its phase (queued, preparing, prepared, processing, captured, indexed, failed, nothing-changed),why it stopped and whether a retry can fix it when it failed, each data point it carried with whether it is searchable and how many memories came out of it, and one sentence naming the next step. Start here when data does not show up. Name the ingestion by its id (the ingest answer's ingestionId) or by the request id that carried it. Needs project Read.

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": "explain_ingestion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	The project's slug, exactly as get_viewer or list_projects returned it. May be omitted when the organization has one live project.
`requestId`	No	The request id (req_…) of the ingest call, when the ingestion id is not known.
`ingestionId`	No	The ingestion id, as the ingest call answered it or list_requests listed it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / project / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / requestId / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the full phase enumeration (queued through nothing-changed), that failure retryability is assessed, per-data-point searchability and memory counts, and the 'Needs project Read' permission requirement. It does not state what happens if both or neither identifier is supplied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded and dense with real information, but it is delivered as one very long comma-spliced sentence with a formatting error ('),why'). The enumeration would be far easier to parse as a list, and the next-step guidance is buried at the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing the return payload (phase, failure reason and retryability, per-datapoint results, memory counts, next step) and names the required permission. Only the edge case of identifier precedence is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the lookup pattern — id from the ingest answer, or the request id that carried it — adding little beyond what the schema text provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('explain an ingestion') and immediately enumerates what the explanation contains: phase, stop reason, per-data-point searchability, and a next-step sentence. This is clearly distinct from siblings like retry_ingestion, get_request, or list_requests.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Start here when data does not show up' gives a concrete triggering condition, and it explains the retry question is answered by this tool rather than pointing at retry_ingestion. The alternative action (retry_ingestion) is implied but never named, so routing is slightly incomplete.

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

All past.dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?