mcp-memory-graph

memory_history

Read-only

Get the point-in-time history and version timeline for any memory, including bi-temporal dates and superseded versions.

Instructions

Point-in-time history surface for one memory: its current bi-temporal timeline (created_at/updated_at/valid_from/valid_to/tx_expired/superseded_at/version) plus the full memory_versions edit history. Returns { memory_id, exists, timeline, versions } or { memory_id, exists:false }.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Memory ID to get the bi-temporal timeline + version history for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.6.4Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds transparency about the return format (two possible shapes) and lists the timeline fields. No contradictions; the description enriches the behavioral understanding beyond 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently lists key details and return types without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the needed context: what it does, what it returns, and how it differs from similar tools. No gaps are apparent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, and the tool description reiterates the parameter's purpose. While clear, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema's param description.

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 returns a bi-temporal timeline and version history for a memory, using specific verbs like 'returns' and listing the fields. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_get and memory_versions by focusing on the combined timeline and history.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description (detailed history retrieval), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_get or memory_versions, nor when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server