Retrieve the most recent source episodes from configured groups, optionally filtered by group IDs and limited to a set maximum, to inspect current graph inputs.
Return the most recent source episodes from configured groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_ids | No | ||
| max_episodes | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that results are 'most recent' and drawn from 'configured groups'; it says nothing about the read-only nature, the default cap of 10 episodes, ordering guarantees, or pagination behavior for a tool that could return many records.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with the core resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though it leaves substantive gaps rather than being padded.
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 explained, but for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage the description is too thin. It omits parameter behavior, selection guidance relative to siblings, and any result-size or ordering context.
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% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate. 'Configured groups' only loosely gestures at group_ids and says nothing about max_episodes or its default of 10, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return the most recent source episodes') and scopes it to 'configured groups,' which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_episode_entities, leaving the agent to infer the difference between retrieving episodes and retrieving an episode's entities.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_nodes, search_memory_facts, or get_episode_entities. The phrase 'from configured groups' implies a default scope but does not tell the agent when to supply group_ids or when to prefer a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.