Query a month of local personal timeline events, including GPS, photos, workouts, health metrics, and stays. Pass a month like 2026-10 to get schema rows sorted by start time.
某月时间线。month 形如 '2026-10'。返回统一 schema 事件行 (ts_start 升序)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| offset | 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order (ts_start ascending) and schema uniformity, but says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, rate limits, or handling of empty/out-of-range months despite exposing limit/offset parameters.
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?
Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.
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 re-explained, but for a three-parameter tool with no annotations the description omits pagination semantics, sibling differentiation, and the meaning of limit/offset. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently beyond the happy path.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It usefully gives the month format ('2026-10'), but limit and offset are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
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 the resource (a month's timeline) and clarifies the return (unified-schema event rows), so an agent knows it retrieves one month's events. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like lifedb_around or lifedb_stats, which likely also read timeline data, so the boundary remains implicit.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the noun phrase that this is the monthly-window query, with no guidance on how it differs from the range/around/geo tools among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.