Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mnema

mnema

Official
by mnema-work
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Audit: the full history of an entity

audit_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace the full history of one entity across all trees and projects in the workspace, including events that subject or reference it. Use it to answer "tell me the whole story" of a task, decision, or skill.

Instructions

Show the complete history of one entity (a task, decision, skill, …) across ALL trees of ALL projects in this workspace: every event where it is the subject, plus events that refer to it (an observation about it, a link whose target is it), which may live in another tree, or in another project. Use it to answer "tell me the whole story of this entity", including the part that happened in a sibling codebase; each entry says which project it came from. An id no event touches returns an empty history (a valid answer). Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "audit_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe entity id whose history to show.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding real behavior: cross-project/cross-tree aggregation, inclusion of referring events (observations, inbound links), per-entry project attribution, and the important clarification that an untouched id yields an empty history as a valid answer. It does not address result volume or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope statement is front-loaded and every clause carries information (scope, referring events, use case, empty-result semantics). The trailing 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotations and the long compound sentence with parentheticals could be split, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the right load: it explains entry provenance ('each entry says which project it came from') and the empty-result case. It leaves the exact shape and ordering of entries unstated, which is a modest gap given there is no output schema to fill it.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: what kinds of things the id can denote (task, decision, skill, …) and the fact that matching is not limited to subject-position events. The id's format is still unspecified beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Show the complete history of one entity') and pins down scope precisely: across ALL trees of ALL projects in the workspace, including events where the entity is the subject and events that merely refer to it. That scope makes it distinguishable from narrower siblings like audit_refs or read_record without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives a concrete triggering intent ('Use it to answer "tell me the whole story of this entity", including the part that happened in a sibling codebase'), which is clear usage context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a narrower lookup instead, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools