List everything recorded or revised across the knowledge graph since a given time, with an optional end date to bound the window.
Everything recorded or revised across the graph since a point in time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | Start of the window (UTC if no zone) | |
| until | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ||
| until | Yes | ||
| changes | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that it includes both 'recorded' (new) and 'revised' (updated) items, which is a useful behavioral nuance, but it doesn't disclose rate limits, auth needs, or whether deletions are included.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and temporal filter.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, which are important given the many related tools in the sibling list.
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 50% (only 'since' documented). The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'until' parameter, leaving its meaning and usage unclear from the description alone.
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 clearly states the resource (everything recorded or revised across the graph) and the temporal scope (since a point in time). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool or say how it differs from recent_records or timeline, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would call this to see changes since a timestamp. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like recent_records or timeline, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.