get_diff_history
Retrieve the schema diff history for a registered endpoint.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max diffs to return (default: 20, max: 50) | |
| endpoint_id | Yes | Endpoint ID |
api-diff-monitor
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed2 schema fields changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"엔드포인트 ID"New value: +"Endpoint ID" - changed
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"반환할 최대 diff 수 (기본: 20, 최대: 50)"New value: +"Max diffs to return (default: 20, max: 50)"
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating read, and 'for a registered endpoint' suggests a precondition. However, the description does not disclose details like ordering, error behavior, or what the diff history entries contain. It's minimal but not misleading, scoring at the 'implied usage' level.
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, concise sentence that states the action and target without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
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?
For a simple read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, so the agent is not told the return format or what a 'diff history' entry looks like. Error handling and ordering are also unspecified. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minimally viable description but not rich.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'endpoint_id' and 'limit' having descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully covers the meaning. 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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' combined with a resource 'schema diff history' and a qualifier 'for a registered endpoint'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_snapshots (which compares snapshots) and detect_breaking_changes (which analyzes changes).
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 gives clear context: this is the tool for getting schema diff history for a registered endpoint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is evident from the qualifier 'for a registered endpoint', which implies it's not for unregistered endpoints or for comparing snapshots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.