DevTune MCP

devtune_get_content_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List detected content changes, their manual claim tokens and measured-action IDs. existingMeasurementId links a page measurement completed within 14 days of the change without implying the change is claimed. Fixed reporting windows; 14-day comparisons. Path filters apply to list totals; summary covers the full window.

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": "devtune_get_content_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No
`limit`	No	The same setting as pageSize. Send either.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor from the previous response; cursors expire after ~48 hours.
`pageSize`	No	Results per page (1-100). Defaults to 25.
`windowDays`	No	Fixed rolling window in days: 7, 30, 90, or 365. Defaults to 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / cursor / maxLength
```
Added value: +12288
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/pageSize",
+  "description": "The same setting as pageSize. Send either."
+}

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: existingMeasurementId links a measurement within 14 days without implying a claim, and path filters affect list totals while the summary covers the full window. That last point is a non-obvious caveat that prevents misreading the numbers. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering.

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?

Four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is dense with domain jargon ("measured-action IDs", "manual claim tokens") that reads as terse rather than wasteful, but a reader must already know the product vocabulary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names key returned fields (claim tokens, measured-action IDs, existingMeasurementId) and explains their meaning. Coverage is good for a five-parameter read tool, though the summary-vs-list relationship could be stated more explicitly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents path, cursor, pageSize/limit and windowDays; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the note that path filters apply to list totals, and its "14-day comparisons" phrasing is ambiguous against the schema's 7/30/90/365 windowDays, adding little clarity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List detected content changes") plus what the records carry (claim tokens, measured-action IDs). It does not explicitly name the sibling write tools devtune_claim_content_change / devtune_unclaim_content_change, so the read-vs-claim distinction is only implied by "manual claim tokens".

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — it is a listing tool whose mention of claim tokens hints that claiming happens elsewhere — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent must infer the claim/unclaim workflow rather than being routed to it.

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

All DevTune MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?