Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

api-changelog-tracker

by io.github.lazymac2x
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fetch_changelog

Fetch versioned changelog entries for a specific API (openai, anthropic, stripe, github, twilio, cloudflare, sendgrid, slack). Filter by date and breaking-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "api_id": "<api_id>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax entries to return (default 10, max 50)
sinceNoReturn entries on or after this date (ISO 8601)
api_idYesAPI identifier
breaking_onlyNoReturn only entries with breaking changes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / api_id / description
      Previous value: -"API identifier (e.g. openai, anthropic, stripe, github, twilio, cloudflare, sendgrid, slack)"New value: +"API identifier"
    • changedInput schema / properties / breaking_only / description
      Previous value: -"If true, return only entries that contain breaking changes"New value: +"Return only entries with breaking changes"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of changelog entries to return (default: 10, max: 50)"New value: +"Max entries to return (default 10, max 50)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"Return only entries on or after this date (ISO 8601, e.g. 2025-01-01)"New value: +"Return entries on or after this date (ISO 8601)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states what the tool does (fetch entries and filters) but does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, error handling, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for an un-annotated tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that starts with the action and resource. It is concise, covers the key features, and avoids any redundant wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return format and default behavior, but it only says 'fetch entries' and leaves response details and pagination unstated. Given the simple parameter set, it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all four parameters, but the description adds value by listing valid api_id values (openai, anthropic, etc.) and summarizing the filter options. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'API identifier' and justifies a score above baseline.

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 action (fetch) and resource (versioned changelog entries for a specific API), and enumerates the supported API identifiers. It also mentions filtering by date and breaking-only, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_versions and search.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you need changelog entries for one of the listed APIs, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as detect_breaking_changes or search. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

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