Skip to main content
Glama

Calls Since Timestamp (Machine Format)

calls_since
Read-onlyIdempotent

Machine format (wr.calls.v1, testnet): call envelopes with published_at after the given ISO-8601 UTC timestamp (v1 basis: published_at). Use calls_list instead when you need state/asset filters rather than a time window.

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": {
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "calls_since"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceYesISO-8601 UTC timestamp, e.g. 2026-10-24T00:00:00Z.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot: it is a versioned machine format (wr.calls.v1) on testnet and the comparison basis is the published_at field. It does not cover return shape details or pagination, but for a fixed-format read endpoint this is solid.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and filter, followed by the alternative-tool routing. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a single-parameter, annotation-rich read tool this covers purpose, filter basis, format version, and the alternative path. Only gap is any hint about the envelope contents or volume, though 'call envelopes' at least names the return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with an example timestamp, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by identifying which field the timestamp is compared against (published_at, v1 basis), which the schema does not state.

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+resource (call envelopes) with an explicit filter (published_at after an ISO-8601 timestamp) and a named wire format (wr.calls.v1, testnet). It is distinguishable from calls_list without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: use calls_list instead when state/asset filters are needed rather than a time window. This is a direct when/when-not routing statement.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.