Register a webhook or email to receive changelog update notifications. Returns a subscription ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email for digest notifications | ||
| api_id | Yes | ||
| webhook_url | No | Webhook URL for POST notifications | |
| notify_breaking_only | No | Only notify on breaking changes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a subscription ID but omits any side effects, such as whether a confirmation is sent, idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid inputs. The mutating nature of the operation is also not explicit.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded ('Register'), and the return value is stated clearly, making it easy to grasp quickly.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between email and webhook_url, the role of api_id (the only required field), or the notify_breaking_only option. This lack of parameter guidance could lead to incorrect invocation despite the clear overall purpose.
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 75%, with api_id undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining that api_id refers to the tracked API. It does add some context that email and webhook_url are alternative notification methods, but it does not clarify if they are mutually exclusive or how notify_breaking_only behaves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's specific action ('Register') and resource ('webhook or email') within the context of 'changelog update notifications', and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on subscriptions rather than on-demand change detection. Mentioning the return of a subscription ID further clarifies its unique purpose.
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 implies usage for setting up notifications but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like fetch_changelog. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., having a tracked API) and does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.
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.