Read the current temporal snapshot for a thread WITHOUT advancing state. Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz_name | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| thread_key | No | ||
| tz_offset_minutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states the tool is non-destructive (doesn't advance state), but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or any side effects beyond that.
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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and usage context, though it could expand slightly without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is overly sparse. It fails to explain what 'temporal snapshot' or 'gap delta' means, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional domain knowledge.
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%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for the 4 parameters. The description also fails to describe any parameters (tz_name, client_id, thread_key, tz_offset_minutes), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
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 clearly states it reads a temporal snapshot for a thread and emphasizes it does not advance state, distinguishing it from the sibling tool temporal_tick which likely advances state.
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?
The description says 'Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event,' providing explicit context for when to use but not explicitly naming the alternative or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools, temporal_peek and temporal_tick, have clearly distinct purposes: one reads state without advancing, the other advances the clock. Their descriptions explicitly contrast their roles, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'temporal_' prefix, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but tightly focused on its core functionality. It could benefit from additional tools like reset or configure, but the count is not inappropriate for a narrow domain.
The server covers basic read and advance operations, but lacks features like resetting time, configuring tick intervals, or querying history. While sufficient for simple use cases, there are notable gaps for more complex temporal workflows.