Waggle-mcp

timeline

Build a chronological view of memory changes for a node, query result, or entire tenant, with timestamped evidence. Use when order and evidence matter.

Instructions

Build a chronological view of memory changes for a node, a query result, or the whole tenant. Use when order and evidence matter. Returns timestamped timeline items.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of timeline items to return.
`query`	No	Optional natural-language query to select relevant memories.
`node_id`	No	Optional node ID to anchor the timeline.
`max_depth`	No	Relationship traversal depth when a node ID or query is supplied.
`include_evidence`	No	Whether to include evidence records alongside node and edge events.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (timestamped timeline items) but does not clarify side effects, authorization needs, or data mutability. The term 'Build' could imply mutation, but it likely refers to constructing a view, not modifying state.

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 concise sentences front-loading the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides the core purpose but lacks details about return format, ordering, or interaction of parameters. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would benefit agent decision-making. However, parameter schemas are fully covered, providing some completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds marginal value by linking parameters to use cases (node_id, query) but does not explain semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'builds a chronological view of memory changes' and specifies the scope (node, query result, whole tenant). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning order and evidence, which aligns with the tool's name and purpose.

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?

The description includes explicit guidance: 'Use when order and evidence matter.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke, though it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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