Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_facts_as_of

Retrieves every fact about a person or thing at a specific moment, classified as known, stale, or unknown, with the recording agent and replaced value.

Instructions

The graph as it stood at a moment: every fact about a person or thing (subject ref or name) at at, each one classified by both timelines — known (true then and Kernl knew it), stale (Kernl believed it then but it was no longer true, or was a mistake) or unknown (true then, but Kernl had not learned it yet) — with the agent that wrote it and what it replaced. One traversal of the graph.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "at": "<at>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_facts_as_of"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atYesThe moment, ISO 8601.
subjectYesSubject ref (Person:<id>) or a person's name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines the three-way classification (known, stale, unknown) with precise semantics for each, discloses that results include the writing agent and the replaced value, and notes 'one traversal of the graph', hinting at cost. It omits read-only confirmation, authorization needs, and result-size limits.

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 dense sentence with em-dash clauses, but the core noun phrase is front-loaded and every clause (classification definitions, authoring agent, replaced value, traversal cost) adds information. The nested punctuation makes it slower to parse than necessary.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what the snapshot means, how facts are classified, and what accompanies each fact. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them ('subject ref or name', 'at'). It adds only the slight clarification that the subject may be a person or thing, which the schema frames narrowly as Person:<id>.

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 resource and temporal scope: the graph of facts about a given subject as of a given moment, with each fact classified. That is enough to distinguish it from a current-state query sibling, although it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 is only implied by the phrase 'as it stood at a moment', which suggests historical or point-in-time questions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kernel_facts_query or kernel_facts_explain, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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