List text-free change events of the last 30 days (article id, title, canonical_url, revision, kind, time). After cursor expiry reconcile through the REST article listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–20 | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes | ||
| retention_days | Yes | ||
| expired_cursor_action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / ChangeEvent / properties / kind / descriptionRemoved value: -"created, updated, hide, publish, rollback or review"Output schema / $defs / ChangeEvent / properties / kind / enumAdded value: +[
+ "created",
+ "updated",
+ "hide",
+ "publish",
+ "rollback",
+ "review"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 30-day window, cursor expiry semantics, and the fallback reconciliation step. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't elaborate on output structure (which is covered by the output schema).
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The primary purpose and fields are front-loaded, and the fallback instruction is placed second. Every word earns its place.
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 the output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the description addresses the main call flow (pagination via cursor and expiry fallback), the definition is complete for an agent to call it correctly. No critical information is missing.
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 100%, so both parameters (limit and cursor) are already documented. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema; the cursor expiry note indirectly clarifies the cursor's role but doesn't add new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'List' and the resource 'text-free change events of the last 30 days', and enumerates the returned fields. The qualifier 'text-free' and the focus on 'change events' distinguish it from siblings like list_open_questions and search, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
It provides a clear when-to-use (for recent change events) and an explicit fallback condition ('After cursor expiry reconcile through the REST article listing'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools, the fallback instruction is actionable and covers the key alternative scenario.
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.