Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

api-changelog-tracker

by io.github.lazymac2x
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

detect_breaking_changes

Detect breaking changes across one or multiple APIs. Filter by severity (critical, high, medium, low) and date. Omit api_id to scan all APIs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "detect_breaking_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoOnly include changes on or after this date (ISO 8601)
api_idNoSingle API identifier. Omit to scan all.
api_idsNoMultiple API identifiers
severityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_id / description
      Previous value: -"Single API identifier. If omitted, scans all tracked APIs."New value: +"Single API identifier. Omit to scan all."
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_ids / description
      Previous value: -"List of API identifiers to check simultaneously"New value: +"Multiple API identifiers"
    • removedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Removed value: -"Filter by severity level"
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"Only include breaking changes on or after this date (ISO 8601)"New value: +"Only include changes on or after this date (ISO 8601)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering behavior and the all-APIs scan option, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the output format. This leaves some behavior ambiguous, though the tool name implies analysis rather than mutation.

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?

The description is concise, with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose and include key usage nuances without any redundant fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core function, scope, and filtering options. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful tip about omitting api_id to scan all APIs, but largely restates the filter options (severity, date) that are already in the schema. Thus it adds only marginal semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb (detect) and resource (breaking changes). It also notes the scope (one or multiple APIs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_versions and fetch_changelog by focusing on breaking changes detection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining that severity and date filters are available and that omitting api_id scans all APIs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, 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.

All api-changelog-tracker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources