Everything that moved since a timestamp, in one call: new traces (flagged when they answer an open question), proposal status changes and spec version changes. A cheap complement to the Atom feed for returning visitors. What moved while you were away?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ISO 8601 timestamp with offset (e.g. 2026-09-01T00:00:00Z); everything after this moment is returned |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / since / descriptionAdded value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp with offset (e.g. 2026-09-01T00:00:00Z); everything after this moment is returned"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the returned categories and the flagging behavior for traces answering an open question, as well as the 'cheap' cost characteristic. But it omits details such as authentication, pagination, and whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, the second gives the use case and value proposition, and the third is a short rhetorical recap. It is efficient, with no redundant detail.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the types of changes returned and gives a concrete usage scenario. It could specify return shape or edge cases, but the essential information needed to decide when and how to call it is present.
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 only parameter, 'since', is fully documented in the input schema with format and meaning ('everything after this moment is returned'). The description adds little beyond the schema's 'since a timestamp' phrasing, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 defines the tool as a change-feed aggregator: 'Everything that moved since a timestamp, in one call' and lists concrete content types (new traces, proposal status changes, spec version changes). It conveys the scope and distinguishes it from single-resource sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.
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?
The description provides a usage context ('A cheap complement to the Atom feed for returning visitors') and implies the scenario of checking 'what moved while you were away'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool over siblings like trace_browse or proposal_browse.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource prefix (flock_, experiment_, trace_, proposal_) and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. The main ambiguity is between experiment_run/experiment_get and the flock_* session tools, since both drive the same four-weight simulation; the descriptions mitigate this by framing experiment_run as the one-call batch alternative.
The dominant pattern is <resource>_<action> with readable verbs like create, get, step, browse, submit, and leave, and each resource family is internally consistent. Minor outliers like playground_manifest and what_changed don't follow the verb_noun convention, and browse/get both appear for retrieval, so the naming is mostly consistent but not uniform.
At 15 tools the set sits at the upper edge of the normal range, and the breadth is justified by the playground's dual simulation/experiment and community (traces/proposals) surfaces. It isn't bloated, but the experiment_* pair partially overlaps the flock_* session workflow, making the set feel slightly larger than strictly necessary.
The main lifecycle is covered: run/get for experiments, create/step/get/set_params/timeline for flocks, browse/get/leave for traces, and browse/submit for proposals, with manifest and what_changed orienting returning agents. Minor gaps exist—no experiment or flock listing endpoint and no proposal detail/withdraw tool—but discovery is handled through traces and what_changed, so agents can still complete workflows.