Chronicle

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools target distinct resources (sources, insights, document memory, sections) with clear action verbs. Search and search_document_memory could be confused, but descriptions specify different targets, making the separation mostly clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use snake_case and follow a mostly predictable verb_noun pattern (list_sources, search_insights). A few names like 'search' and 'fetch' lack an explicit object, which creates minor inconsistency, but the style is uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well within the ideal range and each tool seems purposefully designed to cover a distinct operation in the search/retrieval workflow, earning its place.
Completeness4/5
The set covers listing sources, searching multiple data types, and fetching specific items or sections, which is complete for a read-only retrieval system. A minor gap is the lack of a way to browse all memory sections without searching, but it's not a major dead end.
Average 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context that sections are excluded by default and always strictly capped, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what exactly the overview contains, pagination, or the nature of the cap beyond the section_limit parameter.
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?
The description is concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded ('Get a compact overview') and no verbosity. Every sentence adds value, though the content is sparse. It is compact, fitting the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a baseline: it conveys the tool's compact nature and section behavior. However, it leaves ambiguities about what 'overview' includes (e.g., metadata, summaries) and lacks clarity on return format or when to use this vs. fetching a full document. The description does not fully compensate for the absent output schema.
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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only indirectly references sections via 'Sections are excluded by default' (relating to include_sections) and 'always strictly capped' (relating to section_limit), but does not explicitly explain record_id, section_limit, or include_sections. This is insufficient for full parameter comprehension.
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 'Get a compact overview' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a condensed view of a document memory, which is distinct from sibling tools like fetch_document_section or search. However, it lacks specifics on the exact resource scope or what 'overview' includes beyond sections, so it is slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fetch_document_section or search, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context of siblings implies it is for a high-level summary, but this is not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that results are 'bounded snippets' with 'provenance and stable IDs,' which clarifies output nature beyond the safety hints. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is concise (two short sentences) and efficiently conveys purpose and output characteristics. It does not waste words, though it could include a bit more detail on parameter usage without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. However, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics, leaving gaps in context that the agent must infer from the schema alone. It is adequate but not thorough.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, limit, sources). The only hint is 'selected sources,' which loosely maps to the 'sources' parameter, but 'query' and 'limit' remain undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 identifies the action ('Search selected sources') and the outcome ('Returns bounded snippets with provenance and stable IDs'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like search_insights or fetch, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_insights or fetch_document_section. The description simply states functionality without providing context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete behavioral trait that the result is capped at 10 bounded section summaries, but it does not explain authentication, rate limits, or the meaning of 'page-cited' beyond surface-level wording.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and output characteristics, earning the highest score for conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and multiple sibling tools. It does not explain how record_id scopes the search, when to use this over 'search' or 'search_insights', or what qualifies as a 'section summary'. The presence of an output schema does not offset the lack of parameter and usage context.
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, but it does not. It only implies the 'query' parameter and vaguely references the output limit; it entirely omits the role of 'record_id' and the precise semantics of 'limit'. This leaves three parameters under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('detailed page-cited memories'), and further narrows the output to 'bounded section summaries.' This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_insights' by focusing on document memory and page citations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search', 'search_insights', or 'get_document_memory.' The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or situations where it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the section is 'exact' and 'detailed', suggesting it returns full content rather than a snippet. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid or missing section IDs, error handling, or rate limits. It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.
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 a single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function and its relationship to search_document_memory, which is essential context. However, it doesn't detail return value structure, error behavior, or prerequisites like 'call search_document_memory first', leaving some gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The schema provides one integer parameter, section_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the section comes from search_document_memory, implying that section_id is the ID from that search result. This adds meaning but is indirect; it doesn't explicitly state that section_id must be an ID obtained from that tool.
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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('one exact detailed memory section'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'search_document_memory' by noting the section is 'returned by' that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'fetch' or 'get_document_memory', so it's specific but not fully differentiated.
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 implies usage after running search_document_memory, since it says the section is 'returned by' that tool. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions or alternative tool names. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds extra context by specifying the data domain ('locally generated keep-only summaries') and the result follow-up workflow. It does not contradict annotations.
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 two short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives an actionable secondary instruction. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and workflow. It lacks explicit parameter semantics and differentiation from siblings, but overall provides sufficient context for a basic search tool.
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 explain the parameters. It only mentions 'query' implicitly through the verb 'Search', and 'record_id' is mentioned but is not a parameter. The 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'locally generated keep-only summaries', which distinguishes it from sibling search tools. It also provides a follow-up action with fetch, further clarifying its role.
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 implies the tool is for searching local keep-only summaries and suggests using fetch with record_id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling search tools like 'search' or 'search_document_memory'. No exclusionary guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the constraint that raw paths/URLs are rejected, which is useful operational context, but does not describe error behavior, auth needs, or output.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler words; every phrase adds value.
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?
For a simple one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main semantics and usage constraints. It lacks output details but is sufficient given the low 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 has 0% coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description implies id is a search result identifier and not a raw path/URL, adding some meaning, but doesn't specify the format or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches one exact item returned by search, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_document_section by focusing on search results and explicitly excluding raw paths/URLs.
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?
Provides clear context: use when you have a search result item, and explicitly states what it never accepts (raw paths/URLs). Does not name alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion gives a strong usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about 'enabled' and 'ready' states, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the essential purpose and outcome, and since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description correctly remains silent on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('enabled sources') plus the outcome ('whether each is ready'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on searching or fetching by describing a list operation.
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 implies when to use this tool: to list enabled sources and their readiness. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools are all about searching/fetching, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chronicle MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Sequence/chronicle/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Sequence/chronicle)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chronicle MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Sequence/chronicle/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Sequence/chronicle)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/The-Sequence/chronicle'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server