Memory Journal MCP Server

Search by Date Range

search_by_date_range

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search journal entries within a specified date range and apply optional filters such as tags, entry type, and sorting to find relevant project memory.

Instructions

Search journal entries within a date range with optional filters

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No	Cursor for pagination
`sort_by`	No	Sort results by timestamp (default) or importance score	timestamp
`end_date`	No	[REQUIRED] End date (use `end_date`, not `end`). Must provide an ISO-8601 date string (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD).
`pr_number`	No
`entry_type`	No
`start_date`	No	[REQUIRED] Start date (use `start_date`, not `start`). Must provide an ISO-8601 date string (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD).
`is_personal`	No
`include_team`	No	Include team entries in the search results
`issue_number`	No
`workspace_id`	No	Optional workspace isolation identifier (e.g. "alpha"). Do not use numeric project IDs or "workspace" as the key.
`project_number`	No
`workflow_run_id`	No
`include_archived`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Error code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
`count`	No
`error`	No	Human-readable error message
`facets`	No	Distribution counts when include_facets is true
`details`	No	Additional error context
`entries`	No
`success`	No
`category`	No	Error category (validation, query, connection, internal)
`degraded`	No	True if the search degraded to a slower fallback method due to infrastructure failure
`highlights`	No	FTS5 search snippets when include_highlights is true
`searchMode`	No
`suggestion`	No	Suggested fix for the error
`next_cursor`	No	Cursor for the next page of results
`recoverable`	No	Whether the error is recoverable
`suggestions`	No	Fuzzy matches when fuzzy_match=true and no exact results were found
`correctedQuery`	No	The corrected query when auto_correct=true and a confident match was found
`aggregated_errors`	No	Details of individual errors in a multi-step operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv9.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the basic scope: it does not explain pagination, default limits, archived-entry handling, team inclusion, or result ordering.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse for a 15-parameter search tool. Conciseness is not the problem; the sentence simply does not carry enough structural detail for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the description is still far too thin for a 15-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage. An agent cannot determine the required date format, how filters interact, or when to choose this over related search tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 15 parameters but only 40% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level semantics. It does not mention the required start_date/end_date format, what the optional filters are, pagination via cursor, limits, or workspace/project scoping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching journal entries within a date range. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like search_entries or team_search_by_date_range, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_entries, semantic_search, get_recent_entries, or team_search_by_date_range. The phrase 'with optional filters' does not explain which filters matter or when this date-range-specific search should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server