Trace which entities and facts were produced by source episodes. Identify the origin of knowledge graph data to audit or verify how specific episodes generated entities and relationships.
Trace which entities and facts were produced by source episodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | No | ||
| episode_uuids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does communicate the directionality of the relationship (episodes -> entities/facts), which is a genuine behavioral trait, but it says nothing about permissions, result limits, deduplication, or whether it is purely read-only.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core relationship front-loaded and no filler. It earns its length, though the extreme brevity is also the source of the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with an unspecified group_id and a required uuid array, the description leaves key invocation details (group scoping, uuid semantics) unaddressed, making it only minimally complete.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters and it does not. It hints at episodes but never explains episode_uuids format/plurality nor the meaning or scoping effect of the optional group_id.
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?
States a specific verb (trace) plus the resource and relationship (entities and facts produced by source episodes), giving an agent a clear picture of the operation. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like get_episodes or search_memory_facts, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 phrasing 'produced by source episodes' implies when this is useful (finding the entities/facts derived from known episodes), so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance nor any named alternative to route to when the agent lacks episode IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.