Claim history of a REMOTE MCP server from FACTANKER's own periodic probes (initialize + tools/list every 6h): availability, tool count and contract changes over time, each with evidence. Use when asked whether an MCP endpoint exists, is stable, or changed its tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO date: only changes from this day on | |
| endpoint | Yes | Endpoint URL or registry name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / endpoint / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpunkt-URL oder Registry-Name"New value: +"Endpoint URL or registry name"Input schema / properties / since / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO-Datum: nur Aenderungen ab diesem Tag"New value: +"ISO date: only changes from this day on"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context by revealing the data source (FACTANKER's own probes), the cadence (every 6h), and that each result comes with evidence. This warns the agent that the data may be up to 6 hours stale and is not a live check.
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 dense sentences carry the purpose, data source, cadence, outputs, evidence, and explicit use cases with no filler. Key behavioral constraints are front-loaded.
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 simple read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the substantive return content and update rhythm. Minor omissions such as exact output shape or default value of since do not meaningfully block correct invocation.
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 endpoint and since are already documented. The description reinforces the endpoint concept (MCP endpoint exists/stable/changed) but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific resource (history of a remote MCP server from FACTANKER's periodic probes) and concrete outputs (availability, tool count, tool-contract changes, evidence). It also explicitly ties the tool to existence/stability/change questions, which differentiates it from generic fact and template siblings.
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 clear trigger conditions: use when asked whether an MCP endpoint exists, is stable, or changed its tools. It does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended usage is unambiguous.
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.