Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Align CLI

Align CLI

Official
by aligndottech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

align_get_topic_timeline

Read-only

Trace the chronological decision history for any topic across connected tools, including superseded and archived decisions, to explain how the current standard emerged and what remains open.

Instructions

Everything the team ever decided about a TOPIC, in time order, across every connected tool. Use for "what is the story on X", "how did we end up here", or onboarding onto an unfamiliar area. Includes superseded and archived decisions, because the retired past is what explains why the current answer is current. Not to be confused with align_get_decision_timeline, which is the change history of ONE decision. Answer compactly by default: the current standard first in one sentence, the contested line when decisions disagree, up to three pivotal dated steps, a one-line chain summary, and the sharpest open question the chain leaves open - then offer the rest. Only when the user asked for the story or asks the follow-up, render the full timeline: walk the supersession chain oldest first - which decision replaced which, active vs superseded - with each step's why from align_get_decision_rationale, keep each decision's source_url inline with that decision rather than in a trailing sources list, put the status beside the title, and close with the still-open risks, each naming which decision it came from. When the payload carries still_open, those are the decisions' own stated open questions - close on them.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "align_get_topic_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax decisions to return (default 50, capped at 200)
topicYesThe topic to trace, e.g. "connection pooling" or "authentication strategy"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — that superseded and archived decisions are included by design, and that the payload may carry a `still_open` field representing decisions' own open questions, which is otherwise undocumented (no output schema). It does not discuss result limits, ordering guarantees, or cross-tool coverage failures, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and the sibling distinction are correctly front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is an extended prose specification of output rendering (compact default, then full-timeline walk with source_url placement and status positioning). That content is useful but dense and unsegmented, making the description much longer than needed to select and invoke the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what a default answer contains and what the expanded timeline includes, including supersession structure and open risks. For a two-parameter read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `topic` and `limit` are already documented in structured data; the description adds nothing about `limit` or how topic strings are matched (substring, semantic, alias). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — retrieves everything decided about a TOPIC in time order across connected tools — and explicitly contrasts itself with align_get_decision_timeline (one decision's change history vs. a whole topic's chain). An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete triggering user phrasings ("what is the story on X", "how did we end up here", onboarding) plus an explicit exclusion naming the sibling tool it should not be confused with. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools