Query facts as they existed at a chosen transaction or valid-time point, enabling point-in-time views of a bitemporal knowledge graph for audits, history, and temporal analysis.
Time-travel query: see facts as they were at a given point
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | No | Maximum transaction ID to consider | |
| valid_at | No | Point-in-time for valid-time filtering (ISO-8601) |
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. The description adds only the notion of a point-in-time view; it does not say what happens when neither of the two optional parameters is supplied (0 required params), nor whether tx and valid_at combine or act independently.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the time-travel framing comes first. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back and in what shape, and it does not. For a bitemporal query tool with two optional parameters and many similar siblings, the definition is too thin to call reliably.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema and a baseline of 3 applies. The description gestures at temporal filtering but does not clarify the distinction between transaction time (tx) and valid time (valid_at), which is exactly the semantic an agent needs beyond the schema text.
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?
"Time-travel query: see facts as they were at a given point" names a verb (query) and a resource (facts) with a temporal qualifier, so the general intent is graspable. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as quipu_entity_history, quipu_transactions, or quipu_query, and "see facts" leaves the returned entity ambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over quipu_entity_history or quipu_query, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent must guess from the name alone whether to reach for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.