server-memory

by MK-986123

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

query_timeline

Query activity timeline using time range, actions, entity name, or session ID filters to recall past events.

Instructions

Query activity timeline.

time_range: relative like "2h", "7d", "30m". Or use start/end with ISO datetime strings. Filter by actions, entity_name, session_id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "query_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`time_range`	No
`start`	No
`end`	No
`actions`	No
`entity_name`	No
`session_id`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions filters but does not disclose ordering, pagination, default limits (though schema shows limit default 50), whether it is read-only, or if results are chronological. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key parameter usage details. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure, ordering, or the limit parameter. It lacks depth for a tool with moderate complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains time_range format and lists filter options but omits the limit parameter entirely. The descriptions for actions, entity_name, and session_id are just names with no additional semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool queries an activity timeline, with specific filters. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on entities, relations, and observations. However, it could specify what kind of activity (e.g., system actions, user actions) for even greater clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to specify time range (relative or ISO) and lists filter parameters, implying usage. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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