Skip to main content
Glama

query_timeline

Retrieve a chronological log of recent retrieval and indexing events to reconstruct user activity over a specified time period.

Instructions

Query the episodic memory timeline for recent activity.

    Returns a chronological log of retrieval and indexing events, allowing
    an agent to reconstruct what the user was working on during a given
    period.

    Args:
        since_days: How many days back to look.
        event_type: Optional category filter.
        limit: Maximum results.

    Returns:
        Dict with ``events`` list (each event has ``event_id``, ``timestamp``,
        ``event_type``, ``source``, ``chunk_ids``, ``client_id``,
        ``metadata``), ``total`` count, and ``since_ts`` / ``until_ts`` bounds.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
since_daysNo
event_typeNo
limitNo
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output structure and purpose clearly, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or address any safety concerns, such as no side effects.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides comprehensive information: purpose, parameter explanations, and detailed return structure. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaningful semantics to all three parameters, compensating for the lack. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 queries the episodic memory timeline for recent activity, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly mentions returning chronological events to reconstruct user activity, differentiating it from siblings like search_memory or graph_memory.

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?

Context is given: 'reconstruct what the user was working on during a given period.' This suggests when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kilhubprojects/memory-mesh'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server