Full-text search across all changelog entries. Searches title, summary, and change descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100) | |
| api_id | No | Limit search to a specific API | |
| breaking_only | No | Return only breaking change entries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by listing the searchable fields, but does not disclose other behaviors such as result ordering, case sensitivity, or handling of empty results. This is adequate but minimal.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then relevant details. No filler or repetition.
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?
The tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only explains its scope. It does not discuss when to prefer this tool over siblings or what the return payload looks like, leaving some gaps for a search tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by explaining what the query searches across (title, summary, change descriptions), but does not elaborate on limit, api_id, or breaking_only beyond their schema descriptions.
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 the tool performs full-text search across all changelog entries, specifying the exact fields searched (title, summary, change descriptions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_changelog or diff_versions, which have different purposes.
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?
The description conveys clear context for use: searching across all changelog entries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list_tracked_apis focuses on API metadata, fetch_changelog retrieves entries, diff_versions compares time ranges, detect_breaking_changes filters by severity, search provides full-text, and subscribe_feed handles notifications. Slight overlap exists between detect_breaking_changes and fetch_changelog (both can return entries filtered by date), but descriptions clarify the breaking-change focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (detect_, diff_, fetch_, list_, subscribe_) with snake_case, and 'search' is a simple verb that fits the pattern. No mixed conventions.
Six tools is well-scoped for a changelog tracker, covering discovery, analysis, and subscription functionality without unnecessary bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: listing APIs, fetching changelogs, detecting breaking changes, diffing versions, searching, and subscribing. Minor gaps include no unsubscribe/resubscription management and no single-entry detail view, but these are not critical for the primary use case.