Retrieve dated memory entries in chronological order to answer questions like what happened in March or when a fact changed. Filter by ISO date range and domain.
Walk the trail in date order, oldest first, no scoring. For "what happened in March" / "when did X change". ISO dates, inclusive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: chronological ordering, oldest-first, and explicitly 'no scoring'. However, it says nothing about pagination/limit behavior, permissions, or the read-only nature an agent would want to assume for a mutation-capable API family.
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 core behavior (order, no scoring) is front-loaded and the use-case cue follows immediately; every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotations and 0% schema description coverage across 4 parameters, the description should do more about limit/domain semantics and the tool's safety profile than it does.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the two date parameters usefully ('ISO dates, inclusive') and implies chronological ordering, but leaves 'limit' and 'domain' entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain opaque 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('walk the trail') and adds distinguishing behavioral detail ('in date order, oldest first, no scoring'). The term 'trail' is domain jargon and no sibling is named, so an agent must infer how this differs from list_records or search_memory, but the operation is otherwise clear.
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?
Provides concrete triggering questions ('what happened in March' / 'when did X change') that map the tool to a clear use case. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. list_records or search_memory), so it is context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.