Retrieve a writer's project timeline from ezQuill, showing story chronology or writer milestones. Filter by mode or node to focus on specific events or progress.
The project timeline. Story mode is chronology inside the fiction; project mode is the writer's own milestones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Omit for both. | |
| nodeId | No | Only events attached to this node. | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic behavior by distinguishing the two timeline modes, but it does not disclose operational details like pagination, ordering, or whether the result includes events, milestones, or both. For a simple read-only tool this is a minor gap.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the first names the resource, the second explains the key mode distinction. Every sentence contributes to correct usage.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and a clear mode distinction. The description plus schema cover mode and node filtering. There is no output schema, so the return shape is left implicit, but 'timeline' plus the mode explanation makes the expected content reasonably inferable.
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?
The schema already documents mode ('Omit for both') and nodeId ('Only events attached to this node'). The description adds meaningful value by explaining what story vs project mode actually represent, which helps the agent choose the right value. projectId is not described, but it is self-evident from the tool name and required field.
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 identifies the resource as the project timeline and clearly explains the two modes: story mode is chronology inside the fiction, project mode is the writer's own milestones. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the resource and mode semantics are unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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?
The mode definitions give useful context for choosing between story and project views, and the schema adds 'Omit for both.' However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_project or get_outline, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.