diff_since
What changed for a set of packages since a given date, read from the daily archive. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | ||
| since | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD. |
Sighttrue
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully notes that the operation reads from a daily archive and requires a key, but it does not disclose output format, pagination/error behavior, or limitations such as archive depth.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose, data source, and auth requirement without any redundant wording. The pricing link is a useful addition and does not clutter the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essential idea. However, the absence of annotations and return-value explanation leaves some gaps, such as how the diff is represented or how 'changed' is defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents only 'since' with a format, while 'names' is an undocumented array. The description clarifies 'names' as a set of packages and reinforces the meaning of 'since', adding moderate value, but it does not specify constraints like non-empty arrays or duplicate handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports what changed for a set of packages since a given date, reading from the daily archive. This distinguishes it from siblings like watch_changes and package_weight_history, though it uses the noun phrase 'what changed' rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no examples or exclusion criteria. The key requirement is mentioned, but the description does not help the agent decide between diff_since and the many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct query type: package status, stack review, provider incidents, model pricing, watchlist changes, etc. Even similar-sounding tools like check_package and check_stack are clearly differentiated by granularity (single package vs. whole manifest). The descriptions further remove ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb_noun (check_package, find_model, watch_add) while many are noun phrases (advisory_severity, provider_incidents, runtime_deadlines). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun style, so there is noticeable inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
At 31 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold (25+). While the domain is broad, the agent must navigate a large surface with many similarly scoped utilities, making selection harder. A more consolidated set (e.g., grouping related readings) would improve appropriateness.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of supply-chain intelligence: package advisories, provider status, model pricing, runtime EOL, and watchlist changes. The only notable gap is lifecycle management for the private watchlist (e.g., no watch_remove or watch_list), but the overall coverage is strong.