Read a project's timeline of notes, meetings, and actions newest-first, and search titles or descriptions to find relevant entries.
Read the timeline of a project (notes, meetings and actions), newest first. Pass query to search titles and descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Only entries of this type | |
| limit | No | Maximum entries (default 30) | |
| query | No | Text to search for, case-insensitive | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id, from list_projects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses result ordering (newest first), the content types included, and that `query` matches titles and descriptions. It omits permission/auth prerequisites, behavior for nonexistent projects, and how paging beyond `limit` works, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.
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 short sentences, zero redundancy, with the core read operation and its ordering front-loaded before the optional search hint. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a four-parameter read tool with one required field, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, in what order, and how search narrows results. Only default-result-scope and pagination guidance are missing, which is a minor gap.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for `query` by naming the fields searched (titles and descriptions) which the schema does not specify. It adds nothing for `type` or `limit`, which the schema fully documents.
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 specific verb and resource ("Read the timeline of a project"), enumerates the entry types returned, and specifies ordering ("newest first"). This clearly separates it from the write-oriented siblings (add_note, add_meeting, add_todo_action) and from list_projects.
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?
The second sentence tells the agent how to trigger search behavior, but never states when this tool is the right choice versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb "Read" and the project scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.