List what changed in the host./billing. tool surface -- additions, deprecations, and removals -- since an optional version. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Only list changes after this version, e.g. "0.57.0". Omit to list every tracked change. | |
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
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 burden. It explicitly labels the operation 'Read-only' and defines the returned information as additions, deprecations, and removals. It does not discuss auth or edge cases, but for a safe list-style changelog the core behavior is disclosed.
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?
One compact sentence with a follow-up 'Read-only.' that earns its place. The main action, scope, and output categories are front-loaded with no wasted words.
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 read-only changelog tool with two optional parameters, the description plus rich parameter schema is sufficient for correct invocation. There is no output schema, but the description names the three change categories, so callers know what to expect; only version-matching mechanics are left unspecified.
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 coverage is 100%: both optional parameters are well documented, including the 'since' version format and tenant_key auth semantics. The description only restates the optional-version idea, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely bounded resource ('what changed in the host.*/billing.* tool surface'), including output categories (additions, deprecations, removals) and an optional version filter. No sibling tool covers this same meta-function, so no further differentiation is needed.
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 phrase 'List what changed ... since an optional version' gives clear retrieval context: use this when you need the change history of the host.*/billing.* tool surface. It does not name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative.
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.