Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fable MCP server

fable MCP server

by grooverLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fable_file_history

Reconstruct every version of a file edited by Claude from past transcripts, showing index, timestamp, and fidelity to track file evolution and find version indices to diff.

Instructions

EVERY version of a file Claude ever edited, reconstructed from the transcript — each version's index, timestamp, tool, session and fidelity (exact replay vs rebuilt-backward). Use to see how a file evolved, or to find the two version indices to diff. Pass a file path (or a distinctive substring of it).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fable_file_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that versions are 'reconstructed from the transcript' and mentions fidelity types (exact replay vs rebuilt-backward), providing key behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers version details and fidelity, but lacks mention of error handling or return format. Given no output schema, more could be said about what is returned when a file is not found.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The only parameter 'path' is enhanced beyond schema (which has no description) by noting it accepts 'a file path (or a distinctive substring of it),' adding crucial matching semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it shows every version of a file Claude edited, reconstructed from transcript, with details like index, timestamp, tool, session, and fidelity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fable_file_diff by focusing on history rather than diffing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'see how a file evolved, or to find the two version indices to diff.' It implies the complementary use with fable_file_diff, providing context for appropriate usage.

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