List a participant's change events
The participant's typed change events, newest-first, cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Canonical `scheme::value` Peppol identifier. | |
| limit | No | Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: events are 'newest-first' and 'cursor-paginated'. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying ordering and pagination style.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides key behavioral details. No filler or redundant information.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with well-described parameters and annotations, the description provides adequate context (ordering, pagination, scope). It could mention the response shape but 'change events' is sufficient for a list tool.
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?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (id, limit, cursor) with clear meaning. The description adds little beyond referencing pagination (cursor-paginated), which is already implied by the schema's cursor parameter.
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 description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('a participant's change events'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_participant_history or list_events. The additional phrase 'typed change events' further narrows the scope.
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 implies usage for participant change events but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or get_participant. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
