Recent verification changelog (selfemployuk).
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": "selfemployuk_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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read-only, recency-bounded listing but never states how far back "recent" reaches, whether results are ordered, or how many entries come back.
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 front-loaded fragment with no filler or repetition. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 nested objects, no output schema), which lowers the bar, but the description still leaves an agent unable to predict what a returned entry looks like or what "verification" refers to in this domain. For a discovery/changelog tool, that missing substance is the main thing an agent needs.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the description does not need to explain inputs.
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?
"Recent verification changelog (selfemployuk)" names a resource (a changelog) and a recency scope, which is more than a tautology, but "verification changelog" is opaque — it does not say whether this lists changed rules, changed fact records, or verification status updates. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling read tools like selfemployuk_list_facts beyond the word "changelog".
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 at all: nothing explains whether to call this before or instead of selfemployuk_list_facts or selfemployuk_get_fact, or what a caller should do with the changelog. The only routing signal is the implicit domain prefix in the name.
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.