Recent verification changelog (customsuk).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "customsuk_changes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only, recency-ordered listing but does not state how far back 'recent' reaches, how many entries are returned, whether results are paginated, or what a changelog entry looks like.
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?
A single short fragment with no wasted words, and the scoping qualifier is placed up front. It is arguably clipped to the point of under-specification rather than overly verbose, which is penalized elsewhere.
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?
The tool is structurally simple (no params, no annotations, no output schema), yet the description never explains what a 'verification changelog' contains or what an agent should do with the result. With no output schema, the return shape is entirely undocumented.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical domain qualifier is the only parameter-like information and it merely echoes the tool name.
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?
Names a specific resource (a verification changelog) scoped to the customsuk domain, which does separate it from the sibling get_fact/list_facts tools by the word 'changes'. However, 'verification changelog' is opaque about what actually changed or what a caller receives, and there is no verb indicating the operation (fetch/list).
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling alternatives customsuk_get_fact or customsuk_list_facts. The word 'Recent' hints at a recency window but gives no condition for preferring this tool over querying the fact list.
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.