Skip to main content
Glama

timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reveal what records were written immediately before and after a chosen memory, in creation order, so you can inspect context that keyword search would miss.

Instructions

What else was being written around one memory, in creation order.

For the question search cannot ask: not what mentions this record, but what was being written when it was. Neighbours are picked by time alone, so they come back whether or not they share a word with the anchor -- around a checkpoint, that is the notes and pitfalls of the same stretch of work.

One of uid or query is required; give both and uid wins. The response reports anchored_by ('uid' or 'query') and the whole anchor record, so which record the timeline is built around is never a guess.

Returns {"anchored_by": ..., "anchor": {...}, "before": [...], "after": [...]}, both lists oldest first, so before + [anchor] + after reads straight down the clock. Neither list contains the anchor. domain and type narrow the NEIGHBOURHOOD, not the anchor, and archived records are left out of it, as everywhere else by default.

Each record is snippet-truncated with est_tokens for its full content -- call get_memory(uid) to open one.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidNothe anchor, named outright.
typeNoone memory type, as search() takes it; empty is every type.
afterNohow many records created immediately after it.
queryNosearches for the anchor and takes the top hit (the same search search() runs, scoped by domain/type).
beforeNohow many records created immediately before the anchor.
domainNocovers a path and everything under it, plus what is cross-listed into it, and resolves a bare deep segment the way the other scoped reads do.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed13 schema fields changedv0.16.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / after / description
      Added value: +"how many records created immediately after it."
    • removedInput schema / properties / after / title
      Removed value: -"After"
    • addedInput schema / properties / before / description
      Added value: +"how many records created immediately before the anchor."
    • removedInput schema / properties / before / title
      Removed value: -"Before"
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"covers a path and everything under it, plus what is cross-listed into it, and resolves a bare deep segment the way the other scoped reads do."
    • removedInput schema / properties / domain / title
      Removed value: -"Domain"
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"searches for the anchor and takes the top hit (the same search search() runs, scoped by domain/type)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / query / title
      Removed value: -"Query"
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Added value: +"one memory type, as search() takes it; empty is every type."
    • removedInput schema / properties / type / title
      Removed value: -"Type"
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / description
      Added value: +"the anchor, named outright."
    • removedInput schema / properties / uid / title
      Removed value: -"Uid"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"timelineArguments"
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: neighbours are chosen by time alone regardless of term overlap, uid beats query, the response echoes `anchored_by` and the full anchor record, neither list contains the anchor, domain/type narrow the neighbourhood rather than the anchor, and archived records are excluded.

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 the core purpose, then escalation to mechanics, then return shape, then the follow-up tool. Dense and well-organized, though the stylized phrasing ('reads straight down the clock') adds a little flourish that a stricter tool description wouldn't need.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full return contract: the exact object shape ({anchored_by, anchor, before, after}), list ordering (oldest first), anchor exclusion, and snippet truncation with `est_tokens`. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result 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 real semantics beyond it: the uid-vs-query precedence rule, and the important clarification that `domain` and `type` constrain the neighbourhood and not the anchor. `before`/`after` counts and ordering intent are also reinforced in prose.

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?

The opening line states a specific operation on a specific resource ('what else was being written around one memory, in creation order') and immediately distinguishes it from search: 'not what mentions this record, but what was being written when it was.' An agent can separate this from search, list_recent, and get_relations without opening a schema.

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?

It names the alternative ('the question search cannot ask') and the condition that selects this tool over it, then states the anchor-selection rule ('One of uid or query is required; give both and uid wins'). It even routes the agent onward for full content via get_memory(uid).

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