totem-mcp

by emiliano-go

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

memory_history_tool

Retrieve the immutable timeline of a stored memory, showing its creation, field updates, and deletions.

Instructions

Show the immutable timeline of a memory: created, updated fields, deleted.

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_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Immutable timeline' implies a read-only historical view, which is one useful behavioral hint, but it says nothing about permissions, whether pagination applies, or how the timeline is scoped. Largely insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being a model of completeness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, usage routing, and behavioral scope, leaving the agent under-equipped.

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 coverage is 0% across two parameters (id required, project nullable). The description references identifying 'a memory' only obliquely and says nothing about what 'project' does or how id and project interact, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('timeline of a memory') and enumerates the timeline contents (created, updated fields, deleted), making the operation distinguishable from a plain 'get'. It does not name or contrast with siblings like memory_get_tool or memory_recent_tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 versus memory_get_tool (current state) or memory_recent_tool. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name alone.

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