SiteGraph

claim_timeline

Builds a merged, dated timeline of a claim across URLs, web archives, and fact-checks to show when and where it appeared.

Instructions

Merged, dated timeline for a claim across URLs, archives and fact-checks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "claim_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`urls`	No	Up to 10 URLs where it appeared
`claim`	No	Claim text to look up in fact-checks
`language`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that results are merged across multiple source classes (URLs, archives, fact-checks), which is useful, but it never says what happens when called with no arguments at all — every parameter is optional — nor anything about cost, rate limits, or source coverage limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source classes are packed into the same clause. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 so return values needn't be explained, but for a tool with three all-optional parameters the description should at least state the zero-argument behavior and the relationship to sibling timeline tools. Neither is present.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%: urls and claim are documented, language is not. The description adds nothing about how the two optional inputs combine (union? intersection?) or that they are alternatives, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific artifact — a merged, dated timeline — and the scope it covers: URLs, archives, and fact-checks for a claim. That is clearer than a generic resource name, but it never distinguishes this from the close sibling url_timeline or fact_checks, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 call this versus url_timeline, claimreview_from_url, or fact_checks, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent is left to guess the selection rule entirely.

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

Deploy Server