latest_changesReturn recent model launches, removals, and pricing changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | type | |
| limit | No | limit | |
| cursor | No | cursor | |
| provider | No | provider |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent ('return'). No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are added beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from brief structure (e.g., listing parameter purposes) but is concise.
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?
Output schema exists but is not described; given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate. However, parameter meanings are unclear, which reduces completeness for an agent.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage but each parameter description is just its name (e.g., 'type', 'limit'). The description does not add meaning or usage context beyond the minimal schema entries.
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 it returns recent model launches, removals, and pricing changes. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('changes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_models or pricing_history.
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?
Implied usage is to get recent updates, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. No alternatives are mentioned despite having many sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: searching, comparing, costing, benchmarking, history, news, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_phrase pattern using underscore_case (e.g., search_models, find_cheapest, provider_summary). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
11 tools is an appropriate scope for an AI pricing hub. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set covers the full workflow: searching, comparing, cost estimation, benchmarking, historical data, provider overview, recommendations, and news. No obvious gaps for a read-only pricing resource.