Skip to main content
Glama

Get a public changelog

get_public_entries
Read-onlyIdempotent

List published changelog entries for a project by its public slug. No authentication required.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_public_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProject slug (visible in the public changelog URL)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not carry: no authentication is needed and only published entries are returned. Return shape/pagination is not discussed, but the added auth detail is real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded before the access constraint. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only, fully annotated list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to select and call it correctly. Absence of pagination/return-format notes is minor at this complexity.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented as 'visible in the public changelog URL'. The description's 'by its public slug' adds only marginal reinforcement, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List published changelog entries') plus a scope qualifier ('for a project by its public slug', 'published'). This implicitly separates it from the sibling list_entries, but the description never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'No authentication required' hints at the public/unauthenticated context where this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g. 'use list_entries for private/authenticated access'). Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.