Retrieve the history of superseded facts in a memory category, including when each was replaced and what new fact took its place.
Hechos superados de una categoría de memoria (los que se reemplazaron con add_memory(..., supersede=...)), con la fecha en que dejaron de valer y qué los reemplazó.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | General |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data provenance (facts replaced via supersede) and output contents, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource, then adds the supersede context and return contents. It is appropriately sized with no redundant filler, though the parenthetical could be tightened.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential data concept (superseded facts with date and replacement). However, it leaves gaps in usage guidance and parameter behavior, and does not compensate for the missing annotation safety profile.
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% for the single 'category' parameter. The description mentions 'de una categoría de memoria', which loosely maps to that parameter, but it adds no syntax, allowed values, default behavior, or filtering semantics beyond the parameter's name and schema title.
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 names the resource ('Hechos superados de una categoría de memoria') and scope, and references the sibling operation add_memory(..., supersede=...), which distinguishes it from add_memory. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'list' or 'get', but the noun phrase makes the purpose clear enough for an agent.
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 explains what the tool returns and how superseded facts originate, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternative tools to prefer. An agent must infer that this is for inspecting historical replacements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.