996.fm perspective graph

Trace one person's views over time

trace_evolution

Read-onlyIdempotent

One speaker's takes in order of episode publication date (optionally on one debate) — reversals and re-assertions visible, never judged. Attribute and date every position (dates are episode publication dates); keep hedged claims hedged. A 2023 position is a 2023 position; if the same person later said otherwise, show both.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "person": "<person>"
    },
    "name": "trace_evolution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`person`	Yes	A speaker's full name as the graph records it — an ambiguous surname is refused, never merged
`debate_id`	No	Optional: narrow the chronology to one debate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / debate_id / description

Added value: +"Optional: narrow the chronology to one debate"

addedInput schema / properties / person / description

Added value: +"A speaker's full name as the graph records it — an ambiguous surname is refused, never merged"

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: ordering by episode publication date, preserving hedges, showing both older and newer positions, and never judging. This gives the agent a strong mental model of what the tool will return and how it handles temporal inconsistencies.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes behavioral value. Minor redundancy exists in mentioning 'episode publication date' twice and in the illustrative 2023 example, which could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can expect: attributed and dated positions in chronological order, including both reversals and re-assertions. No critical calling information is missing, and the two-parameter schema is fully covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's person identity constraint and the optional debate narrowing, adding no deeper parameter semantics such as value formats or edge cases.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: it traces one speaker's positions over time, ordered by episode publication date and optionally filtered to one debate. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing chronological evolution, reversals, and non-judgmental presentation.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when an agent needs a chronological view of a single person's views, including these reversals or re-assertions. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

All 996.fm perspective graph tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?