Pane

Get App Feed Events

get_feed_events

Read-only

Poll a v2 app's change feed for what has happened: row creates, updates and deletes, from any writer, agent or human. It is the long-poll analogue of homespun apps watch, since MCP has no streaming. The loop is: call with no since first, process the returned entries, keep the cursor, then call again passing it as since to get only newer entries. Passing wait (around 25) holds the request open until an entry arrives or it times out, which is how the feed is waited on rather than busy-polled. A since older than the retention floor returns resync_required, and the collections are then re-listed with list_rows. Returns { entries, cursor, truncated }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Optional long-poll: how long the relay holds the request open waiting for a new entry (0-30s). Use ~25 when waiting for activity, then call again with the same cursor.
`limit`	No	Max entries per page (capped server-side by FEED_PAGE_MAX).
`since`	No	Opaque numeric cursor from a previous call's cursor. Omit (or 0) to read from the beginning.
`app_id`	Yes	The app id.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses long-poll behavior, cursor mechanism, and resync condition. Describes return shape ({ entries, cursor, truncated }). Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns. No contradictions.

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?

Description is a single paragraph well-structured: purpose, loop logic, optional parameters, error handling, return shape. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return shape, error condition, and complete usage pattern. Handles complexity of polling pattern and parameter interaction thoroughly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining parameter interaction in the polling loop (e.g., 'since' as cursor, 'wait' for long-poll) and the resync behavior, though it repeats some schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool polls a v2 app's change feed for row creates, updates, and deletes. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rows by focusing on the change feed.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit instructions: call without 'since' first, process entries, keep cursor, then call with 'since'. Explains long-poll with 'wait' and when to fall back to list_rows on resync_required.

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

All Pane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: row operations (get/list/upsert/update/delete/restore) are clearly separated, while apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members, publisher, review, and taste each cover a different domain. Even closely related actions like share_link_rotate and domain_set have clearly scoped descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use two patterns: noun-like names for resource areas (apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members) and verb_noun names for row operations (upsert_row, delete_row, etc.). This deviation is predictable and readable, but it is not perfectly uniform, so a slight deduction applies.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform (app lifecycle, data storage, attachments, community, reviews, feedback, identity) justifies the count. Each tool represents a meaningful feature area with multiple internal actions, so none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for apps (create, read, update, delete), rows (create, read, update, delete, restore, list deleted), attachments, membership, grants, ingest, community, and reviews. Obvious gaps like rollback or version history are not core to the domain, and the presence of get_skill helps agents understand the workflow.

Resources

Need Help?