Returns chronological references for a subject, sorted by modification time. Optionally adds bi-temporal knowledge graph facts when full-profile state is active.
Temporal-ordered references for a subject. v1.0 returns FTS5 hits sorted by mtime ascending and can add bi-temporal Graphiti facts when full-profile KG state is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| top_k | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| valid_to | No | ||
| valid_from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses sorting order (mtime ascending) and a conditional side effect (adds bi-temporal facts). However, it omits key traits like default limit (top_k), pagination, or whether it only reads or can mutate data permanently. The version note adds transparency but is not comprehensive.
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 very short (two sentences) with no redundancy. However, the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, slightly harming readability. It earns points for efficiency.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the purpose of date filters, the default limit, or the output format. The mention of FTS5 and Graphiti does not compensate for the missing parameter and return value documentation.
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%. The description does not explain any parameter beyond implying 'subject' is the subject. The date parameters (valid_from, valid_to, as_of) and top_k are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without meaning.
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 the tool provides 'temporal-ordered references for a subject,' which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list') and relies on jargon like 'FTS5 hits' and 'Graphiti facts.' It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like 'mneme_search' but doesn't explicitly differentiate.
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 mentions v1.0 behavior and a condition ('when full-profile KG state is active'), giving some context. But it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like mneme_search or mneme_recall, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.