Recent verification changelog (motuk).
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": "motuk_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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at recency ("recent") but never states the time window, ordering, entry format, or whether entries describe additions, corrections, or removals.
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 a single four-word phrase with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of meaning.
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 mechanically simple (no parameters, no nested objects), which limits how much the description must cover. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what a changelog entry contains and the recency window, and it does neither.
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?
There are zero parameters and no output schema, so the baseline for an argument-free tool is 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to explain.
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 phrase "Recent verification changelog (motuk)" identifies the resource as a changelog for the motuk domain, but it uses no verb and never explains what "verification" means here. The many sibling tools are all identical in form (motuk_get_fact, motuk_list_facts), so the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from them beyond the domain qualifier.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this changelog rather than motuk_list_facts or motuk_get_fact. It also gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or explanation of how the changelog relates to the fact-level tools.
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.