Inspect immutable memory revisions and retrieve the version known at a given RFC3339 timestamp to track changes in stored knowledge.
Inspect immutable memory revisions, optionally as known at an RFC3339 timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| known_at | No | ||
| memory_id | 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that revisions are immutable and can be queried at a point in time, but it does not describe output ordering, pagination, or authentication needs.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core operation and the optional temporal parameter efficiently.
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?
With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is quite terse for a history inspection tool. It covers the core action and timestamp semantics but omits return format, ordering, pagination, and memory_id semantics.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains known_at accepts an RFC3339 timestamp for point-in-time inspection, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, memory_id is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: inspecting immutable memory revisions. It clearly distinguishes this from general memory reads or searches by focusing on revisions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like project_memory or search_project_memory.
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 description implies when to use the optional known_at parameter: to inspect state as known at a given RFC3339 timestamp. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.