Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

api-changelog-tracker

by io.github.lazymac2x
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

subscribe_feed

Register a webhook or email to receive changelog update notifications. Returns a subscription ID.

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": "subscribe_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoEmail for digest notifications
api_idYes
webhook_urlNoWebhook URL for POST notifications
notify_breaking_onlyNoOnly notify on breaking changes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_id / description
      Removed value: -"API identifier to subscribe to"
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Email address to receive changelog digest notifications"New value: +"Email for digest notifications"
    • changedInput schema / properties / notify_breaking_only / description
      Previous value: -"If true, only send notifications for breaking changes (default: false)"New value: +"Only notify on breaking changes"
    • changedInput schema / properties / webhook_url / description
      Previous value: -"Webhook URL to receive changelog notifications (POST with JSON payload)"New value: +"Webhook URL for POST notifications"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

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 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

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