Lore

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fact_supersession_chain

Retrieve the chronological supersession chain for a fact relationship to audit changes over time and understand why each fact was replaced.

Instructions

Show the correction trail for a fact (relationship). USE THIS WHEN: auditing 'how did this fact change over time?' or tracing which newer fact replaced an old one and why. Returns the supersession events oldest first.

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": {
      "relationship_id": "<relationship_id>"
    },
    "name": "fact_supersession_chain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`relationship_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that events are returned oldest first and implies read-only behavior, but lacks details on prerequisites, error cases, or limits. This is adequate but 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, usage context, and return ordering. Every word is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, existing output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, and return format. The lack of parameter description is a small gap, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema coverage is 0%—the description does not mention the single parameter 'relationship_id' or provide any guidance on its meaning or use. The schema only indicates it's a string, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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's purpose as showing the correction trail for a fact, with a specific verb 'show' and resource 'correction trail'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the historical chain aspect and provides concrete use cases like auditing changes over time.

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 explicitly provides 'USE THIS WHEN' scenarios for auditing and tracing supersessions, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, though the use cases are specific enough.

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