Retrieve past versions of a stored memory, newest first, to review changes or recover forgotten details. Supports pagination for browsing longer histories.
Read revision snapshots newest first, including forgotten memories; supports pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| memory_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are ordered newest first, forgotten memories are included, and pagination is supported. This gives the agent useful invocation context.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the action, resource, ordering, special inclusion, and pagination support into a compact form.
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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key invocation facts: revision snapshots, newest-first order, forgotten-memory inclusion, and pagination. It could clarify what 'revision snapshot' means or describe the response shape, but those are not essential for calling the tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It only mentions pagination, which clarifies limit/offset at a high level but does not explain memory_id or the meaning of offset/limit values. The parameter names and defaults are self-evident enough to make a reasonable call, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('revision snapshots'), and adds ordering ('newest first') and scope ('including forgotten memories'). This clearly distinguishes memory_history from siblings like memory_search, memory_context, and memory_status.
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 description implies this is the tool for browsing historical revisions and forgotten memories, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over memory_search or memory_context. Pagination hints at large result sets, yet no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.