Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Heliyos MCP server

Heliyos MCP server

Official
by heliyos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read a record's timeline

heliyos_records_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns an AI-written timeline for a company, person, or deal, including a relationship summary and dated entries newest first. Use it to brief yourself on an account before acting.

Instructions

Returns the AI-written timeline of one record (company, person or deal): the record's current relationship summary and dated entries describing what happened (emails, meetings, deal moves), newest first. Use it to brief yourself on an account before acting. For the raw audit trail of field changes use heliyos_records_events; for the emails and meetings themselves use heliyos_interactions_list. Returns structuredContent {record_id, summary, entries, next_cursor}.

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": {
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "heliyos_records_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoEntries per page, 1 to 100. Default 20.
cursorNonext_cursor from the previous page, with the same limit. Omit for the first page.
record_idYesrecord_id: a 24-character hex id.
response_formatNo"concise" (default) returns each entry cut at 300 characters; "detailed" returns full entry text.concise

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalNo
entriesYes
summaryNo
record_idYes
next_cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: entries are AI-written, ordered newest first, paginated via next_cursor, and shaped as structuredContent. It stops short of saying how fresh or complete the AI summary is, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the disambiguation. Every clause carries information and there is no restatement of the title or name.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still names the structuredContent fields as a convenience. Combined with explicit sibling routing and pagination notes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 record_id format, limit bounds, cursor reuse, and the concise/detailed truncation tradeoff are all already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces cursor pagination and newest-first ordering, adding little syntax or semantic meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ("Returns the AI-written timeline of one record"), scopes it to company/person/deal, and enumerates the payload (relationship summary plus dated entries for emails, meetings, deal moves). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can separate it from heliyos_records_events and heliyos_interactions_list without opening a 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 a positive use case ("brief yourself on an account before acting") and two explicit alternatives with the condition that selects each: raw field-change audit goes to heliyos_records_events, and the underlying emails/meetings go to heliyos_interactions_list. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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