Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

file_history

Lists journaled version snapshots for a file, newest first, so shared-session changes can be reviewed and prior versions restored via version IDs.

Instructions

Journaled versions of one file in this working tree, newest first.

Versions are snapshots taken while several sessions share the tree. Use restore_file with a version id to bring one back; the overwritten content is kept as a new version.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "file_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.1Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: newest-first ordering, that versions are snapshots created across multiple concurrent sessions, and that restore preserves overwritten content as a new version. It never states that the call is non-mutating, nor what a version entry actually contains (id, timestamp, author), which matters since the sibling restore_file consumes those ids.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the ordering guarantee and ending with the restore handoff, with no filler. The middle sentence about shared sessions earns its place by explaining why a file has many versions, though it is the least essential of the three.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is legitimately omitted. Ordering, provenance, and the restore workflow are all covered; the only real hole is the undocumented limit/pagination parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 and largely does not: "one file" implies the required path, but the limit parameter and its default of 20 are never mentioned, nor is any cap or pagination behavior. An agent would not learn from either the schema or the description whether limit=0 or a very large limit is handled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Journaled versions of one file in this working tree, newest first" identifies the resource (a single file's version list) and the ordering, which clearly separates it from restore_file, the only sibling doing something related. The verb is implicit rather than stated (it never says "list" or "return"), but an agent can still tell what it gets back.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly routes to the alternative: "Use restore_file with a version id to bring one back," which tells the agent this tool is the lookup step preceding a restore. There is no explicit "do not use this for X" exclusion, and no guidance on paging through a long history, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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