Read the current temporal snapshot for a thread WITHOUT advancing state. Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz_name | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| thread_key | No | ||
| tz_offset_minutes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior (non-advancing state) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and usage condition, with no unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers core purpose but fails to explain parameter meanings or return value, which is critical given no output schema and 4 undocumented parameters.
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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation or context for any parameter, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
Description clearly states it reads a temporal snapshot without advancing state, and distinguishes from the sibling tool temporal_tick which likely advances state.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: when wanting the gap delta but not the canonical per-turn event. This provides useful context, though could be more explicit about when not to use.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one reads the current temporal snapshot without advancing state, and the other advances the clock and returns a snapshot. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'temporal_' prefix, using clear verbs ('peek' and 'tick') that accurately describe their actions.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but fits a narrow domain of temporal state management. It is slightly on the thin side but still reasonable for the intended purpose.
The tools cover the core operations of reading and advancing temporal state. A potential gap is the absence of a reset or manual set tool, but for the described use case (per-turn gap tracking) the set is complete.