Waggle-mcp

get_node_history

Inspect a memory node's evidence, validity window, and connected context to audit why it exists or how it changed.

Instructions

Inspect one memory node's evidence, validity window, and connected context. Use when auditing why a memory exists or how it changed. Returns the node, evidence records, related nodes, and edges.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes	ID of the node to inspect.
`max_depth`	No	Relationship traversal depth for related context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes what it returns (node, evidence records, related nodes, edges) and infers read-only operation. With no annotations, it covers behavioral intent well, though could add 'does not modify data'.

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: verb-first, efficient, no filler. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Fully explains what the tool returns despite no output schema. For a 2-param tool with no nested objects, description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3. Description aligns with schema but adds no extra depth beyond confirming the inspection scope.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (one memory node) and the verb (inspect). Distinct from siblings like 'get_related' or 'query_graph' by focusing on evidence, validity window, and connected context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when auditing why a memory exists or how it changed.' Provides clear context, though no explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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