get-changelogGet the release history of a Laravilt package: tagged versions with release dates and GitHub release notes, followed by entries from its CHANGELOG.md. Useful for upgrade notes and for checking when a feature or fix shipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of releases and changelog entries to include (1-50, default 10). | |
| package | Yes | Package name, e.g. "panel" or "laravilt/forms". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are assembled from two sources (GitHub releases then CHANGELOG.md entries), which is useful context, but it says nothing about upstream GitHub API calls, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown package.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the use case following. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only minor gaps remain: no error behavior for a nonexistent package and no note that data comes from a remote source.
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 description coverage is 100%: 'limit' documents its 1-50 range and default 10, and 'package' documents its format with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 release history of a Laravilt package') and then enumerates the composition of that history: tagged versions, release dates, GitHub release notes, and CHANGELOG.md entries. This scope is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get-latest-versions or get-package without opening either schema.
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?
Provides explicit usage context ('useful for upgrade notes and for checking when a feature or fix shipped'), which tells the agent what class of question this tool answers. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., when only the newest version is needed, use get-latest-versions), so it falls short of a 5.
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.