entity_timelineDated relationships (appointments, roles, contracts, lawsuits, alliances, criticism…) and events involving a public figure or organisation, extracted from the news, newest first, each with its source headline, plus mentions per month to show how their presence evolved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest first, each includes a source headline, and monthly mentions show presence evolution. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, so not a 5.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys resource, source, ordering, and output details. It is somewhat long due to parenthetical examples, but every phrase adds value.
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?
The description covers return shape reasonably well, but for a tool with five parameters and no output schema it omits critical parameter semantics (from, to, limit, name). An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool with date ranges or limits based on this description alone.
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% across five parameters. The description only indirectly hints at the kind parameter via 'person or organisation'; it says nothing about the required name, from/to date range, or limit. This is minimal compensation for a significant documentation 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?
The description clearly states a specific resource: dated relationships and events involving a person or organisation, extracted from news, with source headlines and monthly mentions. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as entity_network or search_news, so it falls 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_network, search_news, or deputy_record. The description only implicitly narrows use to public figures or organisations, but provides no explicit conditions or exclusions.
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.