Retrieve graph facts valid at a specific ISO timestamp, including superseded history.
Query graph facts valid at a specific ISO timestamp; preserves superseded history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| predicate | No | ||
| include_stale | No | ||
| include_deleted | No | ||
| include_inactive | No | ||
| source_entity_id | No | ||
| source_memory_id | No | ||
| target_entity_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool preserves superseded history, implying it returns historical versions of facts, and filters by a timestamp. This goes beyond the annotations but does not detail default inclusion of stale/deleted/inactive records or pagination behavior.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core action and key behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary details or repetition.
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?
The description provides the essential purpose but omits critical contextual details like the default return set (e.g., whether stale or deleted facts are included by default) and the exact output format. Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, temporal filtering), a bit more context would help an agent use it correctly, though the core behavior is clear.
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?
The schema has 12 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. While parameter names like 'limit', 'offset', and 'at' are somewhat self-explanatory, ambiguous flags such as 'include_stale', 'include_deleted', and 'include_inactive' receive no clarification, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or defaults.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool queries graph facts valid at a specific ISO timestamp and preserves superseded history, which distinguishes it from other memory query tools that return current facts. The verb 'query' and the specific temporal filtering make the purpose unambiguous.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_get. It implies temporal usage via 'specific ISO timestamp' and 'preserves superseded history,' but lacks direct guidance on scenarios or trade-offs (e.g., performance, current vs. historical queries).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.