get_entity_episodesList episodes in which the given entity participates, most recent first.
Args:
entity_id: UUID of the entity.
limit: Maximum number of episodes to return (1-200).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| entity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context - results are ordered 'most recent first' - which is not derivable from annotations or schema, but it omits pagination/cursor behavior and result shape.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly scoped argument notes with no redundant or filler text. Every sentence adds information an agent could not infer from the schema alone.
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?
For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and parameter bounds adequately. It could say a bit more about what an 'episode' contains or how to page beyond the limit, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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% (only bare titles), so the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it explains entity_id is a UUID of the entity and that limit is a maximum bounded to 1-200. It does not mention the default value of 20, which is the only remaining gap.
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 episodes') plus scope ('in which the given entity participates'), which an agent can clearly distinguish from siblings like retrieve_memories or get_entity_relations. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and by the phrase 'in which the given entity participates' - it's evident this is the entity-scoped episode lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus related read tools (get_entity, get_entity_graph_context, retrieve_memories) and no stated prerequisites such as the entity needing to exist.
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.