Retrieve a time-bounded slice of archived knowledge and browser history. Filter by date range, URL, domain, app, or source to access specific records.
Timeline; bounded read-only archive retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| app_id | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| browser | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| fidelity | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| provenance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description's 'read-only' simply repeats the annotation, and 'bounded' only vaguely hints at limits/pagination without explaining what bound applies or what the tool returns.
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 short and avoids wasted words, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. 'Timeline;' repeats the tool name, and the remaining fragment does not earn its place because it omits essential operational guidance.
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?
With 13 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return values, pagination behavior, or archive scope, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret this tool from the information provided.
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%, and the description contains no parameter information. With 13 parameters, mostly untyped nullable strings, the description fails entirely to clarify what start, end, kind, cursor, fidelity, provenance, or the other parameters mean.
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 identifies a resource ('archive') and an action ('retrieval') and adds 'bounded read-only,' so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never defines what 'timeline' means in this system or what kinds of records it returns, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like project_timeline, episodes, query, or search.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus any alternative. Sibling tools such as project_timeline, search, and episodes suggest overlapping capabilities, but the description provides no selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.