Havoptic AI Release Intelligence

What changed since

whats_changed_since

Read-onlyIdempotent

Digest of typed changes (breaking, security, features, fixes, …) since a date or relative window ('7d', '30d'), grouped by tool with breaking changes first. States how many releases in range are legacy records without typed changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "whats_changed_since"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kinds`	No	Change kinds to include, e.g. ['breaking','security'].
`since`	Yes	ISO-8601 date/datetime or relative: 7d, 30d
`tools`	No	Tool ids (fuzzy: 'claude', 'codex', 'copilot' resolve). Omit for all tools; see list_tools.
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from a previous truncated response.
`detail`	No	brief (default) omits infographics and raw notes; standard adds evidence and links; full adds complete release notes.
`max_tokens`	No	Soft cap on the text response, estimated as ceil(chars/3.5). Default 1500.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`since`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`omitted`	No
`truncated`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes
`freshness_note`	No
`estimated_tokens`	No
`dataset_updated_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description sensibly adds output-shaping details: grouping by tool, breaking changes first, and reporting legacy records without typed changes. It does not mention truncation/pagination behavior, though the schema covers the cursor parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core digest behavior and ordering. There is no filler, and the key scoping detail appears early.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety. The description is complete enough for correct invocation while leaving detailed parameter mechanics to the rich schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description repeats the since formats and gives examples of change kinds, but adds no semantics beyond the structured schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: a digest of typed changes since a date/window, grouped by tool with breaking changes first. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_breaking_changes or search_changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "since a date or relative window" and the digest framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling release/change tools, an agent must infer why this digest is preferable to get_breaking_changes or search_changes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Havoptic AI Release Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?