get_versioned_snapshotGet the latest versioned snapshot for a VaultCrux Memory Core topic at an optional timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| timestamp | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / sourcePlatform / enumPrevious value: -[
- "openai",
- "claude",
- "gmail",
- "slack",
- "browser",
- "manual"
-]New value: +[
+ "openai",
+ "claude",
+ "gmail",
+ "slack",
+ "browser",
+ "manual",
+ "ob1"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get') but does not explain any side effects, permissions required, return format, pagination (limit), or the precise meaning of 'at an optional timestamp' (e.g., latest as of that time). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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 filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and key qualifier (optional timestamp).
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?
Despite having an output schema and only 3 parameters, the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It lacks parameter semantics for 'limit', clear usage guidance, and behavioral details. The ambiguity around 'latest' vs 'limit' further reduces completeness. It is adequate for a simple get but leaves important gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'topic' and 'timestamp' implicitly ('for a VaultCrux Memory Core topic at an optional timestamp'), but the 'limit' parameter is entirely undiscussed. Furthermore, 'the latest versioned snapshot' (singular) conflicts with a 'limit' parameter (max 500), suggesting the snapshot might be plural or paginated—creating confusion.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('latest versioned snapshot for a VaultCrux Memory Core topic'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_versions and get_audit_trail. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The optional timestamp hints at a use case, but no explicit context or comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.