Read a bounded batch of events from one registered committed named graph without committing a cursor; apply filters to inspect its log and offsets for targeted event review.
Read a bounded batch of ONE registered committed named graph's events (its own log and offsets) without committing a cursor. Same filters as quipu_events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | Yes | ||
| group | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| consumer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description usefully adds that no cursor is persisted. However, it says nothing about ordering, what happens when 'since' is omitted, whether the batch is resumable, or what the returned log/offset entries look like. For a read tool with annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the routing hint. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six entirely undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of event shape or offset semantics, the definition is too thin for a tool whose main value is paging a per-graph log. The read-only nature is clear, but an agent would have to guess at 'group', 'consumer', and 'since' semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for six parameters, yet it only hints at 'limit' via 'bounded batch' and waves the rest away with 'Same filters as quipu_events'. Nothing explains what 'graph', 'group', 'since', 'types', or 'consumer' mean here or how they interact, leaving the agent to infer semantics from a sibling it cannot see.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete verb+resource pair ('Read a bounded batch of ONE registered committed named graph's events') and pins the scope to a single named graph, explicitly contrasting with the global quipu_events sibling. The phrase 'without committing a cursor' implicitly distinguishes it from quipu_graph_events_commit, so an agent can pick correctly 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'without committing a cursor' gives the key selection condition versus the commit variant, and 'Same filters as quipu_events' points to the reference tool for filter behavior. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or of prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.