Get project channel evidence from canonical closed 14-day improvements. Samples count improvements, not all attempts; before/after evidence is not causal attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum recommendations to return. Defaults to 5. | |
| windowDays | No | Rolling window in days: 30 or 90. Defaults to 30. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 explicitly discloses that results are a sample, not all attempts, and that the before/after evidence is not causal attribution. This is valuable transparency about the nature of the data and its limitations, going beyond what a schema could convey.
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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat follows succinctly. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 is adequate for a simple two-parameter query tool. It explains the purpose and key limitations but does not describe the return format or how the results are structured. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the output would improve completeness, but for a tool with this simplicity, it is minimally sufficient.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters (limit and windowDays) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, it does not need to. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides the necessary meaning.
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 verb (get) and the resource (project channel evidence from canonical closed 14-day improvements), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on 'improvements' and 'what works' distinguishes it enough. The caveat about sampling adds clarity but the purpose is clear without it.
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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and the many other get_* tools in the sibling list. The description simply states what it does without any 'use this when...' context.
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.
