glitch_ledger_tailRetrieve recent entries from an append-only ledger, showing what was asked and answered. Supersession is reported but not applied, so superseded entries remain visible.
The most recent entries from this repository's append-only ledger: what was asked of this server and what it answered. Supersession is reported, never applied, so a superseded entry is still visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that entries are append-only and superseded entries remain visible, which is valuable beyond annotations. It clarifies the read-only nature and the treatment of supersession.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavior detail is provided efficiently.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (tail of ledger, supersession handling). It doesn't mention pagination or how to retrieve older entries, but that's not critical for this simple 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 description coverage is 0% as the description does not mention the limit parameter. The schema itself documents it well (default, min, max), but given low coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.
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 it reads the most recent entries from an append-only ledger, specifying the resource and the type of content (requests and responses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the ledger tail, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.
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 explains the behavior (supersession reported, not applied) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus glitch_status or glitch_check. It implies it's for reading history but lacks clear alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.