Get the list of data tables/cubes that were updated on a specific date (YYYY-MM-DD). Disables SSL Verification. Corresponds to: GET /getChangedCubeList/{date}
Returns: List[Dict[str, Any]]: A list of dictionaries describing changed cube objects.
IMPORTANT: In your final response to the user, you MUST cite the source of your data. For changed cubes, this means including the ProductId (pid) and Title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, yet the description adds genuinely useful context: it disables SSL verification and maps to GET /getChangedCubeList/{date}. It still omits pagination, invalid-date behavior, and result-size expectations for an open-world endpoint.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and endpoint mapping. The 'Returns:' block and citation mandate are slightly verbose but each carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates with a return-type summary plus the pid/Title citation requirement. With only one simple parameter and read-only annotations, little else is needed.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does specify the YYYY-MM-DD format for the single required param. That is the minimum needed but nothing more — no timezone, no range semantics, no example value.
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 and resource ('Get the list of data tables/cubes') plus a precise filter ('updated on a specific date'), which clearly separates it from get_all_cubes_list. It never names the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the date filter: use it to discover what changed on a given day. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no pointer to get_changed_series_list or get_all_cubes_list as alternatives, and no prerequisites stated.
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.