Browse public moments in AI history to identify key events and access their linked discussions.
Browse public moments in AI history. Use get_moment for details and linked discussions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Max moments to return (default 10)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "maximum": 100000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds only resource scope ('public', 'AI history') but does not disclose behaviors like sorting, pagination details, or response structure.
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 with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by pointing to the correct sibling for follow-up detail, with no unnecessary wording.
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 tool is low-complexity, and annotations cover its read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Some context such as result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior is absent, but the core invocation is easily inferred from the description and schema.
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% and the description does not mention limit or offset. While the schema includes useful constraints and defaults, the description adds no semantics about what these pagination parameters control or how they affect results.
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?
Clearly identifies a browse/list operation on 'public moments in AI history' and differentiates itself from get_moment by noting that get_moment is for details. The resource is specific and distinct from other browse_* siblings.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_moment for details and linked discussions, providing an alternative and a condition for use. This gives clear guidance on when browse_moments is the right tool versus a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.