Skip to main content
Glama

tools.changes

Read-only

Detect whether a product's MCP tool schema has DRIFTED since you cached it — rug-pull / tool-poisoning detection (a server silently changing a tool's description or input schema after you approved it; web search structurally cannot answer this). Pass the product slug and EITHER the schema hash you cached earlier (knownHash, from products.get_mcp_setup → server.schema.hash — the strongest signal: an exact mismatch means the tools changed) OR the ISO-8601 timestamp you cached at (since). With neither, it returns the current fingerprint to cache for next time. A product may expose MULTIPLE servers: knownHash is per-server, so pass server (a qualifiedName) with knownHash on a multi-server product — otherwise knownHash is applied only when there's exactly one server. Re-verify before trusting a previously-approved tool. Response: { product, hasMcpSupport, drifted (did ANY tracked server change vs your reference; null when no reference given), servers[] (each: qualifiedName, currentSchemaHash, schemaStable, lastSchemaChangeAt, toolCount, directlyProbed, driftedSinceKnownHash, driftedSince, advice) }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found'|'bad_input', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProduct slug whose MCP tool schema to check.
sinceNoISO-8601 timestamp you last cached at. Reports whether a schema change was recorded after it.
serverNoThe server qualifiedName your knownHash belongs to. Required with knownHash on a multi-server product.
knownHashNoThe schema hash you cached earlier (products.get_mcp_setup → server.schema.hash). Exact-mismatch drift signal.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
driftedNo
messageNo
productNo
serversNo
hasMcpSupportNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds detailed behavioral context: exact mismatch detection, timestamp-based drift, fingerprint caching, multi-server handling, and response structure, fully disclosing the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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?

The description is long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing usage, response, and errors. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No redundant phrases.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: detection modes, caching, multi-server considerations, response fields, error codes, and reference to related tool. It is self-contained and complete for the intended use case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides additional meaning by explaining the relationship between knownHash and server, the caching use case, and the interpretation of 'drifted' versus 'driftedSince', enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool detects schema drift for MCP tools, using specific verbs (detect, check) and resource (schema drift). It distinguishes from siblings by addressing a unique use case not covered by other tools like tools.get or tools.list_by_name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (re-verify before trusting), how to use (knownHash or since, with server qualification for multi-server products), and contrasts with web search. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives among sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct, but products.search and products.find_by_capability overlap in capability-based search, causing potential ambiguity. However, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a dot-separated pattern with verb-noun, but there are inconsistencies: use of underscores (mcp.score_server), varying verb choices (list, find, get, search), and mixing of object and action order.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a comprehensive range of functionality for a directory/MCP server—from browsing categories to detailed tool search and drift detection—without feeling excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers most key operations (CRUD, search, rankings, MCP setup, change detection), but lacks tools for updating or modifying data, which is acceptable for a mostly read-driven directory API.

Resources