What changed in the house rules since a change id: terms versions, accepted assets, rooms opened or closed, the price multiplier, the door. Keep nextSince and pass it back as "since" on the next visit; 0 reads from the beginning. Needs no pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
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. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Needs no pass') and a pagination pattern (keep nextSince, pass as since), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the response structure or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the phrasing is somewhat convoluted (e.g., 'What changed in the house rules since a change id:') and the list of change types is crammed into the same sentence, which hurts readability. It is not overly verbose, but it could be cleaner.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to provide a full picture. It covers the purpose, pagination, and auth, but it omits the response format (what the caller receives), the behavior of the 'limit' parameter, and any error conditions. For a tool with only two optional parameters, this is a notable gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains 'since' well (change id, 0 reads from beginning, nextSince flow) but does not mention 'limit' at all. Since only one of two parameters is semantically clarified, the compensation is incomplete.
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 tool reports changes to house rules and enumerates the specific categories (terms versions, accepted assets, rooms, price multiplier, door). It is specific about the resource and verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'terms' or 'feed', so it misses the top score.
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 detailed guidance on using the 'since' parameter (pagination, 0 from beginning, pass nextSince back) and notes that no pass is needed, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'terms' or 'board'. There is no context about the intended use case or exclusions.
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.