Skip to main content
Glama

Recall a recorded position

librarian-positions
Read-only

Recall a user-recorded stance on a topic by exact key, free text, or referencing note, with dates formed, revised, and optional supersession history.

Instructions

Recall a stance the user recorded on a topic (SCN-011). Query one of three ways: 'topic' for an exact topic key (one result or an explicit not-found), 'query' for free text matched against recorded stances (all terms must match), or 'note' for the positions that reference a note by path. Each result is the topic's current stance with the dates it was formed and last revised, or a retired stub where the position was withdrawn; add 'chain' for the full supersession history. Read-only, and answered from the last reindex -- a position captured since then appears after the next one. When you give back a stance this tool returned, say whose it is and when: it is the user's own recorded position, formed on the date shown and, where a revision date is shown, last revised then -- a reaffirmation re-endorses a stance without changing it, so it never moves that date. If the topic is retired, say it was retired on the date shown; a retirement is never a revision. Never restate one of these as your own present-tense conclusion without that framing -- it is what the user recorded, not what you have just worked out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoVault-relative note path; returns the positions whose refs include that note. Returns a list.
chainNoInclude the full supersession chain for each matched topic (default false: the live position only).
queryNoFree text matched against recorded stances (all terms must match). Returns a list.
topicNoExact topic key. Returns one topic or an explicit not-found.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, it discloses staleness behavior ('answered from the last reindex -- a position captured since then appears after the next one'), retirement semantics (retired stub, never a revision), and supersession history via 'chain'. This is rich behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose and mode routing are front-loaded, which is good, but the closing guidance on how to attribute a stance restates essentially the same rule twice and bloats the definition. Useful content, but not tight.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well: current stance, formation and revision dates, retired stubs, and the supersession chain are all explained. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those semantics ('topic' exact key, 'query' all terms must match, 'note' by path) rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Recall a stance the user recorded on a topic') and enumerates three distinct query modes, each with its matching semantics. An agent can distinguish this from librarian-search or librarian-get-note without opening the schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent across the three query modes (exact topic key vs free text vs note path) and explains the effect of 'chain'. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over its siblings like librarian-search or librarian-get-note, which is the remaining gap.

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