Skip to main content
Glama

Issue lifecycle timeline

issue_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

How a local issue developed over time — a zoning change, a housing or density fight, a tax or fee, a road, park, or police matter. Returns the chronological lifecycle of the issue across meetings (raised → discussed → voted), oldest first, each entry linking to the meeting.

WHEN: 'How has the short-term-rental issue progressed?', 'When was X first discussed and what happened since?'. WHEN NOT: For what a specific person said, use search_by_official; for how they voted, use track_position. For a one-off keyword search, use search_meetings.

Pass city whenever you pass q. The same phrase names a different fight in every city, and without a city the match is ambiguous — you will get issue: null plus a candidates list to choose from rather than a confident answer about the wrong city. Check candidates even on a resolved issue: 'short-term rentals' matches both a citywide ordinance and one subdivision's area-plan amendment.

EXAMPLES: { "q": "short-term rentals", "city": "lehi-ut" } — ALWAYS pass city with q { "issue_id": "" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoResolve the issue by a title/slug substring when you don't have the id (e.g. 'short-term rentals'). Ignored if issue_id is set.
cityNoCity slug to scope resolution (e.g. 'lehi-ut'). Required with q when you have access to more than one city.
limitNoMax timeline entries. Default 100.
issue_idNoUUID of the issue. Preferred when known.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesThe resolved issue. Null when nothing matched, OR when `q` matched issues in more than one city and no `city` was given — check `candidates` in that case and re-call with a city or an issue_id.
timelineYesEvery meeting where the issue was discussed, oldest first.
candidatesYesOther issues matching `q`. Populated (with issue null) when the match was ambiguous ACROSS cities — pick one rather than assuming. Also lists same-city alternates alongside a resolved issue, since one phrase often matches both a citywide ordinance and a single development's version of it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds non-obvious runtime behavior: oldest-first ordering, per-entry meeting links, and the fallback where an ambiguous match yields issue: null plus a candidates list. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then WHEN/WHEN NOT, then examples; nearly every sentence earns its place. Slight redundancy in the two sentences about candidates, but no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers invocation guidance, resolution ambiguity behavior, and required pairings. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds resolution semantics the schema does not convey — the city-scoping rationale (same phrase means a different fight per city) and the candidates list even on a resolved issue. limit/issue_id precedence is left to the schema.

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 resource (an issue's chronological lifecycle) with concrete domain examples (zoning, housing, tax, road, park) and the shape of the return (raised → discussed → voted, oldest first, each entry linking to the meeting). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_meetings and track_position.

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?

Explicit WHEN examples, explicit WHEN NOT with named alternatives and the condition that selects each (person's statements → search_by_official, votes → track_position, one-off keyword → search_meetings). Also prescribes passing city with q.

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.

Resources